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

[hasanahmad]

Agreed, but it's another thing if you have two bombs under your belt. People wanting TASM to fail, especially the ones that truly are Spider-Man fans should know that boycottying TASM without knowing it's a good movie will kill the chance of having a good Spider-Man for a long time. As a comic book fan and as a cinephile, I want my favorite character to kick all kind of asses in the big screen. Hopefulky TASM will be a movie deserving of have a blockbuster status, just like The Avengers.

You know what deserves more recognition? Prometheus , tdkr, avengers, brave, rock of agesMovies which are original and not money hats like spiderman which is sonys attempt to reboot just 5 years Edited May 19, 2012 by Hasan Ahmad

[ZattMurdock]

You know what deserves more recognition? Prometheus , tdkr, avengersMovies which are original and not money hats like spiderman which is sonys attempt to reboot just 5 years

For TDKR to exist, BB had to exist. Prometheus, TDKR and The Avengers are all in it for the money, mate. Yes, there's passion behind this projects, but anyone that is a truly Spidey fan not feeling how passionate Webb and Garfield are for the source material boggles my mind. We've an insanely talented actor that happens to be a comic book geek that looks just as much like Peter Parker as Christian Bale looks like Bruce Wayne. Let TASM to win or fail by its own merits. I was here when people bad mouth Batman Begins too, and I stood by that movie just like I'm doing with TASM now. I believe you do enjoy Nolan's Batman, don't you? Let's hope that this is as good if not better than all the previous Spidey movies. Let us have us a really bad ass incarnation of Spidey just like you feel about Bats, please? Edited May 19, 2012 by iJackSparrow

[grey ghost]

You know what deserves more recognition? Prometheus , tdkr, avengers, brave, rock of agesMovies which are original and not money hats like spiderman which is sonys attempt to reboot just 5 years

What the Sam Hill is a "money hat"?and all the movies you listed as "original" are prequels, sequels, spin offs or adapatations. Even Brave looks like a combination of old stories and archetypes.

[Walt Disney]

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.

Edited May 19, 2012 by The Iron Horse

[Walt Disney]

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.

Edited May 19, 2012 by The Iron Horse

[Rovex]

I cant stand Garfield, never liked him in anything he's been in. I hated The Social Network because i hated all the actors (pretty much) and despise Facebook.I dont much like Spiderman either, never did.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Rovex

[stuart360]

I cant stand Garfield, never liked him in anything he's been in. I hated The Social Network because i hated all the actors (pretty much) and despise Facebook.I dont much like Spiderman either, never did.

Your post made me laugh for some reason, i agree with it though except the Spiderman bit, i have always loved Spiderman.

[ZattMurdock]

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.

I am a lawyer. And I don't think you deserve more than the answer I've already posted. If you'd rather wait ten years to watch a Spidey movie, do it. I'm sure that TASM won't disappoint and it will be Soidey's Batman Begind. Go on with your mature boycott of a movie that isn't even out yet, sir.