[Weekend Estimates pg 60 Mad3 60.3 Prom 50.0]

Wonder how the other 3 did tonight-SWATH, MIB3 and TA. I guess we'll know soon enough.

Yeah, I wanted my daily TA update. What's the deal with all these other movies thinking they can come in here and steal TA's thunder?

[Venom | 5 OCTOBER 2018 | Sony | Tom Hardy is Venom. Social Media reactions coming in]

Carnage and Venom tag-team as the villain for TASM2 would be awesome.

I don't like Garfield as Spider-Man at all. But, I would definitely be excited about a Venom and Carnage tag-team for TASM 2. That would get me to the movie theater.

[Weekend Estimates pg 60 Mad3 60.3 Prom 50.0]

That's a terribly low Sat bump for M3. Already shows legs won't be great if you ask me.

That might be good for Brave though. M3 was going to be Brave's biggest competition, IMO.

[Venom | 5 OCTOBER 2018 | Sony | Tom Hardy is Venom. Social Media reactions coming in]

I was joking i think make anti hero.

I would make him a villain in a Spider-Man film first. Then, turn him into an anti-hero in another Spider-Man movie by introducing Carnage as the villain.

[Venom | 5 OCTOBER 2018 | Sony | Tom Hardy is Venom. Social Media reactions coming in]

Yes, but JL was coming before Venom and nothing to til recently.

I still have my doubts about JL. They need to properly establish enough JL members to actually pull it off. So far, they have only been able to establish their big 2: Superman and Batman. Even if they get Wonder Woman off the ground, they still need 1 or 2 more members, and they hurt themselves badly with Green Lantern.

[Venom | 5 OCTOBER 2018 | Sony | Tom Hardy is Venom. Social Media reactions coming in]

For the love of Uncle Ben, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wait, you don't want a Venom movie?

[Venom | 5 OCTOBER 2018 | Sony | Tom Hardy is Venom. Social Media reactions coming in]

Well Producers are seeing after TASM. With JL coming in a few years due to TA success, SONY wouldn't be to far behinds with their shared Universe. Movies have been in longer development and all of a sudden they get a director and the rest is history.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the original plan to do a Venom movie after SM3?

[How Long Have You Been Following the Box Office?]

Since about November of 2011. I discovered the Mojo list for domestic gross adjusted for inflation and became very interested in it. I mostly like it to compare the big studios against each other.

[4 day Actuals pg 62+; MIB3 69.25m TA 47.22m]

Thanks. What are chances Sony's movie division going under.

There was an article that Sony would sell its movie division from some business website that monitors such things. The argument being that Sony needs to concentrate on its core business and selling Columbia would get them some much needed cash. However, there is no way that Disney would buy Columbia.

[4 day Actuals pg 62+; MIB3 69.25m TA 47.22m]

The Avengers making a whole bunch of money does not compensate for all of these disappointments.

It does for me. I don't want to see every movie do well; only the ones that I like. And seeing the Avengers continue to excel makes the box office extra exciting.

[Best 1 Billon Movie]

I'm just amazed at the Titanic love.Must be more gals on this site than I thought.

It's the movie I would rank last out of the whole list.

[Best 1 Billon Movie]

Most of the movies on this list were horrible. They were popular, but that doesn't make them any good. The only 3 that were better than ok are Avatar, Toy Story 3, the Dark Knight, and the Avengers.Avatar is a good movie, but it isn't great. It isn't even very good. It's good, but somehow has become over-rated (then again Titanic is the biggest chick flick ever made and it stinks, so I should be thankful Avatar isn't Titanic bad).Toy Story 3 just isn't a great movie to me because of my age. If i was a kid, I might feel differently about it.The Dark Knight is a great movie. I didn't like the original Batman at all and still don't. However, the Dark Knight got the Joker right in my opinion. It blew Nicholsan's Joker away. It was the best superhero movie I ever saw until Disney/Marvel unleashed the Avengers.The Avengers is my clear choice as a winner. It is non-stop action. The humor is well done. It is very fast-paced, and it has no dead spots. After I saw it, I wasn't sure if it was better than the Dark Knight. However, after seeing it a second time in the movie theater, it is definitely my favorite. I am picky when it comes to movies, but the Avengers was definitely a movie that was made for me. I'm surprised to see so many people sharing my taste in movies and pushing it over 1 Billion WW.If I had to rank them:Avengersthe Dark KnightToy Story 3Avatar...not really interested in the rest of the list at the moment.

[Weekend Actuals page 66 TA: 55.6m BS: 25.5m ; SW EP1 $293!]

Some tidbits that may or may not be interesting: this past weekend TA passed Superman's adjusted total of 454m. The next comic book milestone is Batman's adjusted total of 498m.

I just checked and Spider-Man 2 adjusts to $476m, so that would be next up.

[Weekend Actuals page 66 TA: 55.6m BS: 25.5m ; SW EP1 $293!]

Yeah well you don't entertain me or many others seen as though half the users have you on their ignore list!.

Thank you. I was wondering if this site had an ignore list. I added him to my ignore list as well.

[Thursday Box Office 5/17/2012 Avengers 6.2 (402M) Dictator 2.8 (7M) DS 1.7 (38M)]

An attorney? Awesome, I'm a brazilian lawyer! With that said, while I'm quite fit to analyze contracts, we don't have any contracts to analyze here, have we?

About your opinion being "dumb" and "naive", I stand behind what I've said. See, Batman & Robin wasn't a bomb. It was a profitable movie, was it awful? Yes it was, I don't even like to think about it, but it was a profitable disaster. Pretty much like SM3, the difference being that SM3 was even more of a bigger box office success, regardless how awful that movie is.

If you are a comic book geek, you'd be aware by now how unfaithful to the material source Raimi's trilogy was, and how much of an abomination SM3 truly was. It botched the franchise and ruined everything that could come afterwards. I mean, Sandman as Uncle Ben's killer, haven't we learn how stupid that plot was with Batman 89's Joker? There was no turning back, the trilogy was doomed. And don't blame Sony for it, Raimi and his brother were the ones behind all of these "brilliant" ideas. He wanted to make Anne Hathaway Felicia Toomes, the daughter of Adrian Toomes for fucks sake. Can you imagine that? A Vulturess? REALLY?

But that's not exactly my point, my point is that just like B&R, SM3 left an awful taste on the general audience and fanboys mouth. And then it came the brilliant Batman Begins movie. A reboot, a reboot that just like TASM, it wasn't exactly marketed as a reboot, but it was, and it was fucking brilliant. Can you imagine what would've happened if BB bombed? We'd never get a TDK, let alone a TDKR.

What brings to my point about how dumb, naive, not informed your opinion is, or what I suspect, with second intentions. See, you're clever. I can see that, and I'm praising you for it. You're so clever that I can't fathom how you'd think that's a good thing for Spider-Man movies, because a bomb, while it could give the rights back to Disney/Marvel, it would make for at least more ten years until we maybe get a Spider-Man movie, and that wouldn't be a guarantee of succes, let alone a good movie.

I think that trying to explain it to you this or the other members of the board sort of insulting to your intelligence and others, but here it goes: Spider-Man bombing wouldn't be a good business for Marvel because just like you've pointed out when I said that maybe Fox would buy the movie rights, buying a bomb is a bad idea. Do you really want Marvel to get the rights back so bad that you're willing to risk not have a good Spider-Man movie for the next 5-10 years , and worst than that, without not even knowing if Webb's Spider-Man is a good movie or not? Do you really think it's a good thing for comic book movies to have arguably the most popular superhero out there to have a bomb in its curriculum?

Wishing to The Amazing Spider-Man to bomb is as bad as wishing The Dark Knight Rises to bomb, these movies have yet to prove how much there is a real market for well made movies based on comic books. This would affect all of them. Luckily, regardless of your "boycott", no matter how dumb and silly it is, The Avengers has proven that there is an avid market for larger than life superhero movies that are family friendly, pretty much what Spider-Man is all about. As a wise Colonel once said, I still believe in heroes. And as a certain legendary director recently said, I don't believe in transcending the genre, I believe in the genre. The Amazing Spider-Man will be the ultimate sleeper hit, regardless of boycotts and the naysayers. I'm rooting for ALL comic book movies coming out the summer. But I confess that I'm more partial to our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.

This is a very special year for comic book movies. I don't think we should be rooting for one or another, let alone rooting against it. But this is a free World, so whatever floats your boat, mate. But I bet you are aware of all this, I'm just trying to clarify where I'm coming from.

Oh that's okay, I'm just paranoid, as my fellow friend user could testify. I frankly apologize.

As I said above, yeah but no. Spider-Man bombing would kill the character as an option for a reboot for at least 5 years, and that's the optimist in me talking. Marvel doesn't want The Amazing Spider-Man to fail. The fans shouldn't want that. What's so hard about watching a movie before deciding to hate it? And it's different of hating a movie like Battleship and rooting against it, because well, you are a fan of the character and should know better. If you want comic book movies to thrive, you should root for them, not against them. Let Spider-Man have his Batman Begins, I'll assure you that the Dark Knight is a big boy and can take the competition, even if TASM is an astounding success.

Andrew Garfield doesn't look like nothing coming out of a Twilight movie. He's known as one of the most prolific and talented young actors for several reasons, if you need any evidence go watch Boy A, Red Riding trilogy, Never Let Me Go and Social Network. There's a reason why Fincher hand picked him for one of his best movies and it wasn't solely about his looks.

And if you can watch this and not root for this guy...

I'm sorry, but maybe Spider-Man isn't a movie for you after all.

I will try to reply again. The first time, I wrote a nasty reply. However, I deleted that response and will try again. If the discussion goes poorly, I will not bother discussing this with you any further. But, for the record, I do no believe that you are a lawyer. I believe that you're lying about that.

As for your second paragraph, you're wrong about my opinion. Also, I have no idea what Batman and Robin has to do with this discussion. You're going off-topic.

As for your third paragraph, I am not a comic book geek, as evidenced by my misspelling of Spider-Man. However, Sony approved the script and hired Raimi as the director. Yet, you didn't like his Spider-Man movies. You're saying that you feel that a new Spider-Man movie needs to be made. Yet, you feel comfortable with Sony having another try with another director. Isn't it naive to think that they will do a better job this time? Don't you think the company that writes the comic books would make an adaption that was the closest to the source material? From what you're saying, it sounds like a new studio should take a shot at the character. That's my conclusion from what you just told me your opinion is of the original Spider-Man trilogy.

As for the 4th paragraph, I don't understand what you're trying to say. It sounds like you're saying that TASM 2 will be as good as the Dark Knight. If that isn;t what you're saying, then I don't understand your point.

As for the 5th paragraph, yes it could be 10 years until we got another Spider-Man movie (although Marvel made another Hulk movie as soon as they got the rights back from Universal). However, even if it was 10 years, Disney owns the character so they can wait until the time is right, no matter how long it takes. As for whether it would be a good movie, it has a better chance than any Spider-Man movie that Sony would make. Since Disney bought Marvel I have enjoyed every movie that Marvel has made. Furthermore, Marvel writes the Spider-Man comic books, so they know this character better than anyone. They are in the best position to make the best Spider-Man movie.

As for the 6th paragraph, I don't think it would hurt Marvel at all if the character bombed at the box office. People aren't going to stop reading Spider-Man comic books because the last Spider-Man movie wasn't good. Just like SM3 didn't hurt the popularity of the character. And yes, I am willing to wait 5-10 years with no Spider-Man movie if it means I will be rewarded with a top notch Spider-Man movie that will lead to something. There is so much more opportunity for Spider-Man in the MCU than there is for him in solo movies. As for the Webb movie, I already saw the Spider-Man origin story on the big screen, I don't need to see it again. Especially when the origin story looks very different than that in the comics.

As for the 7th paragraph, again you're just being a baby. Stop with calling my boycott dumb or silly. Act like a lawyer, instead of the bratty 17 year old that you probably really are. And it has nothing to do with Spider-Man anyway. It really has to do with X-Men First Class 2. Spider-Man looks horrible to me. Even if I didn't want the rights to revert to Marvel, I wouldn't waste my money on that movie. The lead actor doesn't look like Peter Parker, a costume that is wrong, and the story is not based on a Spider-Man comic. I don't need to see another origin story; especially one that is completely different than the comics. Tobey looks like Peter Parker. Andrew Garfield looks like Edward Cullen.

As for your 8th paragraph, I don't root for all comic book movies. I could care less about most of them. I root for the ones that I really love. The Green Lantern failing was funny to me. And I was happy when Ghost Rider 2 didn't perform well because Sony only made that movie to keep the rights from reverting to Marvel. Lets see how long they can keep that up with Ghost Rider.

As for your 9th paragraph, I am a fan of the Marvel superhero. I am not a fan of a guy just because his name is Spider-Man. And you know who writes the Marvel Spider-Man comics? Marvel. And you know who would make a great Spider-Man movie? Marvel. And Marvel does want TASM to fail. The reason I feel this way is because it was reported that Sony asked Disney for an extension on making a new Spider-Man movie (because it was so soon after SM3 had come out) and Disney said no. Disney paid over 4 Billion dollars for Marvel. Do you really think they don't want to have the movie rights to Marvel's number 1 character?

TASM will not be Spider-Man's Batman Begins. Spider-Man's Batman Begins will be when Marvel can finally make the definitive Spider-Man adaption. I may not be alive to see it, but I hope I am.

As for your last paragraph, I didn't like Social Network and never heard of the other movies that you mentioned. Other than you singing the praises of Garfield, you haven't proven he's a great actor. Just because you call him one doesn't make him one. Also, he looks exactly like someone out of a Twilight movie. He does not look like Peter Parker. He may wish he did, but he does not. He looks like the typical archetype for a young adult movie. He does not look like a superhero, Peter Parker, or Spide-Man. He is horribly mis-cast.

As for me rooting for that guy, maybe if I actually liked movies like Twilight, then I would. However, he is not Spider-Man. Maybe he is playing the part in Sony's movie, but he is not Spider-Man. Spider-Man is a Marvel superhero who is written by Marvel. Andrew Garfield looks nothing like the guy depicted in the comic books.

[Thursday Box Office 5/17/2012 Avengers 6.2 (402M) Dictator 2.8 (7M) DS 1.7 (38M)]

An attorney? Awesome, I'm a brazilian lawyer! With that said, while I'm quite fit to analyze contracts, we don't have any contracts to analyze here, have we?

About your opinion being "dumb" and "naive", I stand behind what I've said. See, Batman & Robin wasn't a bomb. It was a profitable movie, was it awful? Yes it was, I don't even like to think about it, but it was a profitable disaster. Pretty much like SM3, the difference being that SM3 was even more of a bigger box office success, regardless how awful that movie is.

If you are a comic book geek, you'd be aware by now how unfaithful to the material source Raimi's trilogy was, and how much of an abomination SM3 truly was. It botched the franchise and ruined everything that could come afterwards. I mean, Sandman as Uncle Ben's killer, haven't we learn how stupid that plot was with Batman 89's Joker? There was no turning back, the trilogy was doomed. And don't blame Sony for it, Raimi and his brother were the ones behind all of these "brilliant" ideas. He wanted to make Anne Hathaway Felicia Toomes, the daughter of Adrian Toomes for fucks sake. Can you imagine that? A Vulturess? REALLY?

But that's not exactly my point, my point is that just like B&R, SM3 left an awful taste on the general audience and fanboys mouth. And then it came the brilliant Batman Begins movie. A reboot, a reboot that just like TASM, it wasn't exactly marketed as a reboot, but it was, and it was fucking brilliant. Can you imagine what would've happened if BB bombed? We'd never get a TDK, let alone a TDKR.

What brings to my point about how dumb, naive, not informed your opinion is, or what I suspect, with second intentions. See, you're clever. I can see that, and I'm praising you for it. You're so clever that I can't fathom how you'd think that's a good thing for Spider-Man movies, because a bomb, while it could give the rights back to Disney/Marvel, it would make for at least more ten years until we maybe get a Spider-Man movie, and that wouldn't be a guarantee of succes, let alone a good movie.

I think that trying to explain it to you this or the other members of the board sort of insulting to your intelligence and others, but here it goes: Spider-Man bombing wouldn't be a good business for Marvel because just like you've pointed out when I said that maybe Fox would buy the movie rights, buying a bomb is a bad idea. Do you really want Marvel to get the rights back so bad that you're willing to risk not have a good Spider-Man movie for the next 5-10 years , and worst than that, without not even knowing if Webb's Spider-Man is a good movie or not? Do you really think it's a good thing for comic book movies to have arguably the most popular superhero out there to have a bomb in its curriculum?

Wishing to The Amazing Spider-Man to bomb is as bad as wishing The Dark Knight Rises to bomb, these movies have yet to prove how much there is a real market for well made movies based on comic books. This would affect all of them. Luckily, regardless of your "boycott", no matter how dumb and silly it is, The Avengers has proven that there is an avid market for larger than life superhero movies that are family friendly, pretty much what Spider-Man is all about. As a wise Colonel once said, I still believe in heroes. And as a certain legendary director recently said, I don't believe in transcending the genre, I believe in the genre. The Amazing Spider-Man will be the ultimate sleeper hit, regardless of boycotts and the naysayers. I'm rooting for ALL comic book movies coming out the summer. But I confess that I'm more partial to our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.

This is a very special year for comic book movies. I don't think we should be rooting for one or another, let alone rooting against it. But this is a free World, so whatever floats your boat, mate. But I bet you are aware of all this, I'm just trying to clarify where I'm coming from.

Oh that's okay, I'm just paranoid, as my fellow friend user could testify. I frankly apologize.

As I said above, yeah but no. Spider-Man bombing would kill the character as an option for a reboot for at least 5 years, and that's the optimist in me talking. Marvel doesn't want The Amazing Spider-Man to fail. The fans shouldn't want that. What's so hard about watching a movie before deciding to hate it? And it's different of hating a movie like Battleship and rooting against it, because well, you are a fan of the character and should know better. If you want comic book movies to thrive, you should root for them, not against them. Let Spider-Man have his Batman Begins, I'll assure you that the Dark Knight is a big boy and can take the competition, even if TASM is an astounding success.

Andrew Garfield doesn't look like nothing coming out of a Twilight movie. He's known as one of the most prolific and talented young actors for several reasons, if you need any evidence go watch Boy A, Red Riding trilogy, Never Let Me Go and Social Network. There's a reason why Fincher hand picked him for one of his best movies and it wasn't solely about his looks.

And if you can watch this and not root for this guy...

I'm sorry, but maybe Spider-Man isn't a movie for you after all.

[Thursday Box Office 5/17/2012 Avengers 6.2 (402M) Dictator 2.8 (7M) DS 1.7 (38M)]

The Iron Horse, Arachnid is right. If Disney and Sony discover that it's on their best interest to make these movies together, they will do that. I don't want TASM to fail because they seem to have finally nailed Spider-Man's and Peter Parker's character and the movie looks really good so far. And while I can understand baumer's rationale for being a spoiled-little-baby-that-we'll-turn-into-a-Webb's-Spider-Man-lover, thinking that a Spider-Man reboot should bomb so the movie rights are reverted to Disney/Marvel is not only naive thinking, it's just plain dumb.Explain it to me, what "Spiderman" - it's Spider-Man, but I'll let it pass this time - being with Marvel would make you watch the movie? You seem to have created an account just to talk about boycottying Spider-Man's movie because you want to see the character back with Marvel, explain me your reasons for that. Explain me what could possibly Marvel do that Sony isn't doing right now, casting a director and an actor passionate with the source material and going wild with the Spidey mythos.

I will explain my position again. But if I hear one more comment about how my opinion is "dumb" or "naive" then I am done with this conversation. I know most of you probably work in the theater industry or in movie related jobs. I do not and don't claim to be an expert at box office predictions. However, I am an attorney, so I do know about contracts and how to analyze contracts.One last aside, I did not sign up here to champion a boycott. I actually found this site because I was curious about the Avengers and how it was performing at the box office. Then, I became caught up in reading everyone's opinions, and have done so on my free time for the past few weeks. I signed up because i wanted to respond to the poster that asked why anyone would root for a movie to fail at the box office. I had not seen my reason mentioned, so I signed up to share it. Most people are unaware that a lot of the Marvel movies are not made by Marvel, and since I have done a lot of research on the subject, I wanted to share that as well.Now, I will get back to your question. I have personally found all of Marvel's movies very enjoyable since Disney purchased them. I loved Iron Man 2, Captain America: the First Avenger, and Marvel's the Avengers (my favorite of them all). Also, I thought Thor was very good. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that Marvel does Marvel movies the best. Also, I love the creation of the MCU and I am excited by the possibility of linking up all these characters on the big screen. Therefore, I would like Marvel to have control over all of their characters.What Marvel can do that Sony isn't right now is to link Spider-Man up with the other characters in the MCU. My own personal opinion for all movies is I don't like reboots or remakes. I don't want to pay to see someone else's rendition of a movie with different actors. If the first movie was great, I don't need to see a different take on it. I can just rewatch the original instead (which is the better movie anyway). I already saw Sony's Spider-Man' origin on the big screen. I don't need to see another Sony take on Spider-Man. Also, Marvel knows their own characters' origin stories better than anyone. It's tough to make a better Marvel movie than Marvel could. Thus, Marvel will stay truer to the source material.As for actors, I am sure Marvel would not cast an actor who looks like he came straight out of a Twilight movie in the role of Peter Parker. That actor doesn't look like Peter Parker at all. Marvel has an excellent track record for casting the right actors in their movies. Probably since they are so familiar with the comic books that they write.Edit: I just wanted to add why Arachnid is wrong. He is wrong because it is not in Disney/Marvel's best interest to work together with Sony. If you want to know why, just ask and I will reply, but I feel this reply is long enough.

[Thursday Box Office 5/17/2012 Avengers 6.2 (402M) Dictator 2.8 (7M) DS 1.7 (38M)]

If they were guaranteed 800m DOM/2b WW, Sony and Disney would team up for Gnomeo and Juiet and the Smurfs.

True, but that's different than the situation with Spiderman.If I may quote the Sopranos to illustrate:There are 2 bulls standing on top of a hill (an uncle and his nephew). The nephew looks down and sees a bunch of cows down there. The nephew turns to the uncle and says," I'm going to run down this hill and fuck one of those cows"! The uncle replies," why run? Instead lets walk down the hill and fuck them all"!I quoted directly (altho they may have been goats in the actual story told in the show), but you can edit since the quote does contain foul language. i am not sure what the board's policy is on that.

[Thursday Box Office 5/17/2012 Avengers 6.2 (402M) Dictator 2.8 (7M) DS 1.7 (38M)]

FOX would be buying the rights from Sony for any amount of money they'd want to recover from the bomb. We won't be seeing Spidey in the same Marvel Universe if the studios don't get to make an agreement. You're being naive about boycotying this, but I won't stop you. I'll be there at the pre-screening come July 3rd, and hopefully, I'll watch the best Spider-Man movie ever.

I don't think Fox would want to make a money losing transaction like that. Fox would be buying a franchise that already failed, then they'd have to spend a lot of money to make a new movie. It's not financially worth it. You have to understand that these movie studios have the film rights for a very reasonable fee. Fox buying film rights from Sony is a financial loser for Fox because now they're stuck paying for the film rights and the movie. And the characters that Sony has the films rights to (Spiderman, Ghostrider) have a shorter time period for when a new movie must be in production than the characters that Fox has the license to.As for the team up, Disney will never agree to share the profits for their own character. They will never work with another studio when they hold all the cards. If they are just patient, they will get the movie rights back. Disney isn't going anywhere, so it doesn't matter if it takes 30 years to them. Disney still owns the character Spiderman, the comic books, and can make animated series with the character. Sony only has a license for the movie rights.I am not being naive about boycotting this. Number 1, I don't see remakes or reboots because why would I waste money on someone else's rendition when I can just watch the original. I have already seen Spiderman on the big screen. Number 2, I don't believe my not seeing this film alone will have an impact, but I can only do my part. Lastly, the only way the movie rights will revert is if Sony can no longer make money from Spiderman films, so it is very logical.The only way I would be naive is if I thought Disney was going to agree to work with other studios or if I thought I'd eventually see Spiderman in the Avengers. I don't believe either of those.

[Thursday Box Office 5/17/2012 Avengers 6.2 (402M) Dictator 2.8 (7M) DS 1.7 (38M)]

The Spider-Man fanboys "boycotting" this film won't be able to help themselves but watch it in some other way. Either via illegal torrent or DVD/Cable. Which means, if the film is good, they will end up being the first in line for the second film. No matter what, Sony will end up winning.

I can only speaking for me personally. I am not a Spiderman fanboy. I don't really like the Spiderman movies that Sony makes. I might catch it on cable though, but it isn't a priority.Eventually the Spiderman movies won't make as much money and the rights will revert. Hopefully that will happen in my lifetime. I would like to see Marvel's take on the character.I know most people don't feel like me, which is why we will never see Spiderman in the Avengers in the foreseeable future. But atleast I am doing my part.

[Thursday Box Office 5/17/2012 Avengers 6.2 (402M) Dictator 2.8 (7M) DS 1.7 (38M)]

Spider-Man bombing won't make Sony reverting the rights to Disney/Marvel. It's too valueable of a property for them to let go this way. I want TASM to succeed exactly because I want to see amazing Spider-Man movies and, hopefully, Marvel and the other studios getting some sort of agreement about how to make these characters coexist in the same universe. If it doesn't happen, well, if TASM is a brilliant movie, why the hell to boycott it? This isn't smart thinking in my opinion.

It will eventually. The licensing deal states that Sony has to keep making Spider-Man movies by a certain number of years, or else the rights revert back to Marvel. I believe it's 5 years for Spiderman and Ghostrider (the deals with Fox are different). No one knows except Sony and Marvel/Disney, but Ghostrider 2 was rushed for that reason.Disney isn't agreeing to have these characters co-exist in their universe. There is no reason for them to do that. Why should they do that when they can keep all the profits when the characters revert? When the properites fail, then they get them back completely, can integrate the characters into their universe, and keep all the profits. Disney is in this for the long run, so they will never agree to co-exist with the other studios. They will just paitnetly wait for the other studios to have a few bombs on their hands, then reboot the character.In my opinion, boycotting those movies is the smartest thing if you want Marvel to have the movie rights to all of their characters. That may not be your goal. You might not care that there are marvel characters that can't exist in the MCU. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I wish more people felt the way I do. Because that's the only way Spiderman will ever be in the Avengers.

[Thursday Box Office 5/17/2012 Avengers 6.2 (402M) Dictator 2.8 (7M) DS 1.7 (38M)]

why do people hope certain films bomb? I can understand maybe if it was because the movie was promoting bad morals or something but if its just a movie you are not interested in, just don't see it. Are you under the naive impression that if those kinds of movies flop, studios will stop making them and make smaller movies all the time?

Personally, I want TASM to bomb because that's the only chance of Sony letting the movie rights revert to marvel. That will only happen if Sony's Spiderman and Ghostrider films do horribly. Ditto for Fox's X-Men movies, Fantastic Four moives, and Daredevil movies.It may never happen, but I can atleast try to do my part. I'm not seeing any of them in the movie theaters anymore. And I will hope that they fail.