(Seriously? This is what they turned The Rhino into?)
Yes, I just said that. That, and I also get how folks can be flocking to the latest rendition of Spider-Man, despite the horrible reviews (of the story itself).
I came away from Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man 2 pretty nonplussed. The story hurtled forward and was shoved down the viewers throats. But the visuals in the movie are spectacular. If you're a Spider-Man fan, you know his web-slinging is represented in a spectacular fashion. Additionally, I must say that unlike the Sam Raimi versions, Marc Webb's version of a Spider-Man story seems to have a lot fewer screaming women. OMG, seriously. How often could Mary Jane scream in any one fifteen-minute period?
Sam Raimi's Spider-Man is Out-Pacing Marc Webb's?
So far, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a touch behind Raimi's second Spidey film, with the numbers adding up, 2004's Spider-Man 2 raked in $116M during its opening weekend, while Webb's second film netted only (I'm calling millions "only.") $92M.
To me though, I like to see what the numbers say, as far as how many people went to see a movie. How many actual tickets were given out.
With that said, per Box Office Mojo's adjusted ticket price inflation tool, they indicate that 2014 movie tickets cost an average of $7.96 and 2004's movie tickets cost $6.21. (Keep in mind that modern-day averages include the heavily overpriced large format and 3D movie experiences.)
So in doing the math from the dollars that BOM suggests, that says that 18.7 million folks went to see Raimi's second film on its opening weekend versus 11.6 million folks seeing Webb's. Wow. I would have figured the number of butts in seats to be more competitive than that.
I'm not even going to try breaking down the first film between each director's vision, needless to say, Raimi's pulled in $404M domestically, while Webb's pulled in $262M. There seems to be one heck of a pattern here.
Maybe this reboot was too soon. But Sony is scrambling.
As Sony scrambles to reboot Spider-Man, mimicking the successful pattern of Marvel Entertainment, they seem to be playing catch up by stuffing as many Easter eggs, references and what not in their films. They hit on classic historical Spidey moments, introduced new characters in horrible new guises, referenced to others to come, and even had an after-credits scene which was completely useless to the furthering of the Spider-Man franchise.
Can't blame them on any count.
I had a confusing movie review of the film. I gave it a "popcorn 7," but trashed the crazy story that felt like a digital blanket bombing of our senses. I was stunned that I sort of agreed with mainline critics. Egads, the end is near!
But with the mediocre or scattered story, I keep wondering how it's cranking in the money or getting such great user ratings on sites like IMDb. (Raimi's 2: 7.4; Webb's 2: 7.5)
The Transformers film franchise seems to get trashed on by mainstream critics while fans flock to the theaters and snap up the DVDs. Even when they're bare-bone DVD/BD offerings.
And I tend to enjoy that franchise and understand what it's like to enjoy a movie and the fun it brings, versus what critics have say about it. And suddenly I realized that just because I feel numb about a movie and start to wonder why it's doing well, I just came to understand this distinction of enjoyment because of how I feel about Transformers.
This distinction in how critics look at films versus fans enjoyment of movies is one of the major reasons that I started the "dramatic vs popcorn movie review scale." I could not give a film like Transformers a 9 or 10 on the same scale as a real movie with a solid, dramatic story. But when I want to give a movie a 10 because I loved it or had incredible fun with it, it seemed technically wrong. So I created a scale for the popcorn-fun movies, and show in a diagram, where I think these scores relate to a dramatic movie. Because in the end, I do get how films from different genres compare to each other. At least, as they used to.
Bottom lining it, you are going to like what you're going to like and to hell with everyone else.
But enough about that conundrum.
I guess the bottom line is that I had an epiphany and fully understand how folks can love Spidey 2 so much. Me, I do love the web slinging, and I do enjoy that the reboot is following more of the classic comic book story arc rather than how Raimi approached it. But Sony is seemingly looking to take the same route that Marvel has, and that's by not using true mutants, but rather, science-induced characters. (Think about it!)
Raimi's films have out-performed Webb's films. Hands down.
Yet seeing as how, via estimations, that almost half as many movie-goers flocked to theaters to see The Amazing Spider-Man 2, I have to wonder of Sony is prepared to see what damage such an early reboot schedule can do to a franchise? Or will it keep it's theater legs under it and reap the rewards over the long haul?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =