Spider-Man: Far From Home is the first Spidey film to make over $1 billion

[Scott Taylor]

The adjusting for inflation thing is mostly nonsense.

It ignores the fact that the entire culture has changed over time.

People went to the movies in much greater numbers in, say, 1939 because there was nothing else for entertainment.

Movies weren't competing with TV, or video games, or streaming, or DVDs or DVRs or any of the other modern distractions that fragment the entertainment dollar today.

And adjusting for inflation also assumes that somehow Gone with the Wind or whatever would have sold the same amount of tickets at today's prices.

It's ridiculous. People just need to stop trying to insert that "when not adjusted for inflation" asterisk when mentioning that a movies crosses a box milestone.

Congrats to Far From Home. Loved it, glad to see it meet with such success.

I'm not taking anything away from the movie itself, just maybe a little from the significance of the billion dollar mark. The movie was great, I loved it absolutely. Better than Homecoming, for me.

In fact, its pretty significant that this movie is even on the list adjusted for inflation because there are so many cultural "perfect storms" to consider for many on the list. Gone with the Wind is one of those type of movies, because of its place in history, use of color, length and a whole host of other factors. The original Star Wars is really high on the list, too. It was a great movie but it also captured this unforeseen cultural need at the time to see a good, B-movie level scifi film. Almost all the scifi at the time was deep, dark and thought-provoking with very little in the way of pure fun.

These things are fun to analyze.

[Snoop Dogg]

we live in a world where americans didn't go see godzilla, film is dead

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I'm not taking anything away from the movie itself, just maybe a little from the significance of the billion dollar mark. The movie was great, I loved it absolutely. Better than Homecoming, for me.

In fact, its pretty significant that this movie is even on the list adjusted for inflation because there are so many cultural "perfect storms" to consider for many on the list. Gone with the Wind is one of those type of movies, because of its place in history, use of color, length and a whole host of other factors. The original Star Wars is really high on the list, too. It was a great movie but it also captured this unforeseen cultural need at the time to see a good, B-movie level scifi film. Almost all the scifi at the time was deep, dark and thought-provoking with very little in the way of pure fun.

These things are fun to analyze.

Inflation is mainly about the value of dollar then versus today. Cultural stuff and so on is of secondary concern. Yeah GWTW didn't have to compete with sports and TV, but it also didn't have as modern movies do stuff like home video releases which provide ancillary revenue, merchandise and so on. And domestic grosses of GWTW is super-high and the main part of its mammoth success. Also true of Cameron's films. Cameron's films are primarily successful as films and less so as merchandise. Whereas most of the money the MCU makes will be on merch.

And the fact is that a lot of movies reached $1bn over the last decade or so. Like Aquaman made it. It's US gross is $335mn but its international gross is $810mn, which means that Warner Bros were really smart about distributing these movies in international markets and cutting good deals to elevate what would have been a low-end superhero success into something in the big club. That doesn't mean Aquaman is the next Harry Potter (the IP that makes more money for WB than anything).

Black Panther for instance made $700mn on US grosses, double Far From Home's US gross, and its domestic gross was greater than its international gross.

But in terms of merchandise and so on, i.e Spider-Man lunchboxes and so on...big international markets are important so it's probably of bigger weight there, but since Sony Pictures won't get much of that merchandise pie it's not exactly helpful to them.

[boots]

If they can afford champagne, I can' imagine they'd care for the opinions of any naysayer. I can't afford champagne, but I can denigrate and poke holes in other people's success for free.

i can't speak for your local grog shop, but here, champagne is about the same price as beer or wine. it has the perception of being lux, but really you can grab a bottle for cheap.

In any case, since Sony is the one who gets to keep all this box-office money, it's in their interests, and that of their accountants to play down as much as they can the success of the MCU Spider-Man films in their Disney interactions. Because at the end of the day, Sony wants Spider-Man and its rights to be with them.

ohhhh, so you were empathising with sony then? throwing your support behind them? that sounds less petty

also, pascal better stop doing interviews talking about the success of mcu spidey.

And the bit about companies keeping most of the money in US releases is true. A movie that underperforms domestically but does well internationally is still considered a failure. International markets are important but they are mostly an extra special bonus.

it's not completely untrue but it's also not exactly how you present it. % from domestic and international for studios is not a fixed rate. sometimes the domestic take for companies is lower, sometimes the take on international gross is higher. also disney deals allow it to pull a higher % of domestic ticket sales than other studios (say 60% instead of 50%), so a smaller local box office can still result in a high return. i'm not sure whether sony got to piggyback on that deal structure for spidey.

and as i said, it's changing. international will become more and more important and allow for movies like 'pacific rim' to produce sequels. international ticket sales are considered a growth market while the usa domestic is considered saturated. that's an important distinction as hollywood looks to the future.

don't you think calling international an "extra special bonus" is a tad misleading? while it might not (currently) make enough of a difference to create a hit, it can mean the difference between a failure and "healthy". the way hollywood writes and makes movies is now with an eye to international audiences (for instance, comedies are broader and less localised in their humour)...they're not making those big changes in the hopes of the cinema equivalent of a tip.

It's also accountants, industry professonials and so on.

ok, i'll bite. which accountants and pros...and to what ends are they drawing these comparisons? specific examples of how it would be said in meetings and docs and for what purpose. i honestly don't see it.

the industry, audiences, re releases, ancillary markets, society, technology etc have changed from decade to decade. aren't the top 10 inflation films nearly all pre 80s? by that yardstick, almost no movie post 1980 stacks up.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

ohhhh, so you were empathising with sony then? throwing your support behind them? that sounds less petty

I don’t really want Disney to get the rights of Spider-Man back, yes. I would prefer it stay with Sony. That much is true.

also, pascal better stop doing interviews talking about the success of mcu

Any Pascal’s interests at this point aren’t Sony’s. She is currently separate from Sony with her own company but managed to attach herself to Spider-Man IP. She would be happy to work at the MCU provided she gets a say and influence.

the industry, audiences, re releases, ancillary markets, society, technology etc have changed from decade to decade. aren't the top 10 inflation films nearly all pre 80s? by that yardstick, almost no movie post 1980 stacks up.

Fact is cinema enjoyed the biggest audience any art form ever did. Movie attendance in the golden age is several times higher now. It was cheap affordable mass market entertainment unlike today. I don’t see how the loss or diminishing of that could ever not be a comedown and have it acknowledged as such. People like to think that things are better now than before and don’t like reminders that there are things in the past that are lost and gone for good. The fact that no movie made today will ever likely have the audience of the old days is one of that. And Hollywood insiders play down the whole adjusted for inflation because having an asterisk next to grosses makes it hard for them to boast stuff.

And at the end of the day, box office isn’t the final thing or final judgment on a movie’s quality or lack thereof. I happen to think GWTW is a bad film. Not because it’s long or anything but that it’s bad. Movie made with multiple film makers hired and fired and so on. The subject matter is also bad. It’s got a strong performance by a lead actress and so on, so that’s about it. Ultimately the fact that no movie can ever be #1 again is liberating.

[boots]

I don’t really want Disney to get the rights of Spider-Man back, yes. I would prefer it stay with Sony. That much is true.

i was kidding, but ok.

but on that topic, i'm also scared of any studio or company monopolising our entertainment. so i sympathise there, despite my own hypocrisy.

Any Pascal’s interests at this point aren’t Sony’s. She is currently separate from Sony with her own company but managed to attach herself to Spider-Man IP. She would be happy to work at the MCU provided she gets a say and influence.

fair call.

Fact is cinema enjoyed the biggest audience any art form ever did. Movie attendance in the golden age is several times higher now. It was cheap affordable mass market entertainment unlike today. I don’t see how the loss or diminishing of that could ever not be a comedown and have it acknowledged as such. People like to think that things are better now than before and don’t like reminders that there are things in the past that are lost and gone for good. The fact that no movie made today will ever likely have the audience of the old days is one of that. And Hollywood insiders play down the whole adjusted for inflation because having an asterisk next to grosses makes it hard for them to boast stuff.

And at the end of the day, box office isn’t the final thing or final judgment on a movie’s quality or lack thereof. I happen to think GWTW is a bad film. Not because it’s long or anything but that it’s bad. Movie made with multiple film makers hired and fired and so on. The subject matter is also bad. It’s got a strong performance by a lead actress and so on, so that’s about it. Ultimately the fact that no movie can ever be #1 again is liberating.

suuuuure....but that wasn't the assertion, was it? it was that hollywood bean counters and decision makers were sweating the numbers adjusted for inflation and comparing movies made decades apart. but they know the battlefield, they know where the money is being made...and the box office is not what wins the war.

if we're now saying it's worthwhile as an exercise in how them times be changing...yeah sure.

[edit] which means, yes, i do agree that the billion dollar tag doesn't mean what the headlines infer, but that in itself is not an indication that a film isn't a success.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

but on that topic, i'm also scared of any studio or company monopolising our entertainment. so i sympathise there, despite my own hypocrisy.

Yay...consensus.

But also, aesthetically I prefer Spider-Man being a standalone character in his own corner. I think he works best there and certainly the Raimi films would have been lessened if other heroes were in that movie. I don't think a Shared Universe is to his benefit for the most part. Certainly not the way the MCU has done it at any rate. And also Sony has given us the Spectacular Spider-Man, first Spider-Man in High School cartoon and still the best take on that and most faithful to the L-D era and USM.

suuuuure....but that wasn't the assertion, was it? it was that hollywood bean counters and decision makers were sweating the numbers adjusted for inflation and comparing movies made decades apart. but they know the battlefield, they know where the money is being made...and the box office is not what wins the war.

The numbers on the box-office at the end of the week don't win the war by itself is right and correct. There's always more to the story. And as always it's in the eye of the beholder. The question is if this box-office success is to the benefit of Sony or Disney. So far, I'd say that this will continue to give leverage to Sony over Disney in terms of the long-term goal of Spider-Man's rights and who gets to keep it. I mean Sony has a certain leverage -- Venom, ITSV -- being pretty successful relative to budget. And now Far From Home where they keep most of these grosses and Disney might not like seeing those big digits go to another studio which is what the agreement entailed. Solo MCU Spider-Man movie grosses go to Sony and not Disney. The question of Spider-Man being better of in the MCU has unclear optics and the main swing factor would be the US Gross, and Sony still has claim to the highest grossing Spider-Man movie in that metric.

At the end of the day that's the message Sony Pictures will give to its shareholders.

if we're now saying it's worthwhile as an exercise in how them times be changing...yeah sure.

It can be both. The metrics of box-office collection was created in an era where box-office conversations and so on were primarily known among the industry trade and not outside it. So in a lot of respects it's outdated but it's a system that fair or not we agree on. Adjustment for inflation plays fair within that system. Making excuses for cultural changes while still using weekly box-office sales, i.e. the terms of the system, is not playing fair.

which means, yes, i do agree that the billion dollar tag doesn't mean what the headlines infer, but that in itself is not an indication that a film isn't a success.

Far From Home is a success but it's not an exceptional success in the current context. It's the first Spider-Man movie whose total worldwide gross is greater than Spider-Man 3. Spider-man 3 screwed the pooch so bad that no movie after it matched it. The success of Spider-Man 3 was based on the legacy of the first two movies since it's grosses peaked on initial releases and dropped drastically after that. This shows that Raimi's turkey isn't the albatross on the franchise's neck (though you could argue that Venom did that better).

My big worry and fear about the success of the Spider-Man movies is that it can be damaging for Spider-Man if all people retain is him being this legacy character to Iron Man and incompetent moron stuck in high school forever. As it is high school Spider-Man is threatening to damage Spider-Man as much as the 1966 Batman show did to its character.

[boots]

The numbers on the box-office at the end of the week don't win the war by itself is right and correct. There's always more to the story. And as always it's in the eye of the beholder. The question is if this box-office success is to the benefit of Sony or Disney. So far, I'd say that this will continue to give leverage to Sony over Disney in terms of the long-term goal of Spider-Man's rights and who gets to keep it. I mean Sony has a certain leverage -- Venom, ITSV -- being pretty successful relative to budget. And now Far From Home where they keep most of these grosses and Disney might not like seeing those big digits go to another studio which is what the agreement entailed. Solo MCU Spider-Man movie grosses go to Sony and not Disney.

disney getting licensing rights is the big win here, especially if that means tv licensing and streaming. a top exec at warner said that 85-90% of their entire entertainment earnings comes from that. all the costs from film distro aren't involved, so almost all money garnered is straight into pocket (outside of residuals).

It can be both. The metrics of box-office collection was created in an era where box-office conversations and so on were primarily known among the industry trade and not outside it. So in a lot of respects it's outdated but it's a system that fair or not we agree on. Adjustment for inflation plays fair within that system. Making excuses for cultural changes while still using weekly box-office sales, i.e. the terms of the system, is not playing fair.

who agrees on it? and who's playing fair? neilson throw that little bone out to the media and they devour it. just because people are told that's the conversation to be had, doesn't mean it is.

adjusting for inflation makes little sense beyond the trivial. i still haven't seen one concrete example of how it would affect decision making.

My big worry and fear about the success of the Spider-Man movies is that it can be damaging for Spider-Man if all people retain is him being this legacy character to Iron Man and incompetent moron stuck in high school forever. As it is high school Spider-Man is threatening to damage Spider-Man as much as the 1966 Batman show did to its character.

you can relax. not only are audiences more media savvy than they were during west's time but people growing up loving (and not without good reason, it's a great take) high school spidey will be no more damaging than people loving goofy thor.

[Jman27]

Yay...consensus.

My big worry and fear about the success of the Spider-Man movies is that it can be damaging for Spider-Man if all people retain is him being this legacy character to Iron Man and incompetent moron stuck in high school forever. As it is high school Spider-Man is threatening to damage Spider-Man as much as the 1966 Batman show did to its character.

I really doubt when the first thing a person thinks of when talking about Batman is the 1966 version. I myself never heard of the 1966 character since 5 years ago. And what damaged did that show even do people love that show so much I never heard anything negative about it. What you should really be concern about is the constant reboots the character is going through in the big screen

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I really doubt when the first thing a person thinks of when talking about Batman is the 1966 version. I myself never heard of the 1966 character since 5 years ago.

I guess that dates me. But the Adam West Batman (which FWIW has now attracted some defenders) defined Batman for decades and decades well into the 90s. Even then it wasn't until Nolan's films that this particular ghost was laid to rest. I grew up in the '90s so I remember.

Spider-Man being this teenager, or in the MCU a live-action version of the character in the Ultimate cartoons, tends to create a much more shallow, one-dimensional version of the character.

This doesn't mean that Spider-Man being a teenager can't be done well (like USM comics, Spectacular cartoon) but if that is the only well people go to, you'll never get to character beats that properly belong to a more fuller, defined, and complex version of the character.

[boots]

I guess that dates me. But the Adam West Batman (which FWIW has now attracted some defenders) defined Batman for decades and decades well into the 90s. Even then it wasn't until Nolan's films that this particular ghost was laid to rest. I grew up in the '90s so I remember.

yeah man, i loved that **** growing up. we used to get smashed and watch the '66 movie on dvd. good times

but, burton's take had been out for years, and we were able to hold the images of different iterations of the same character in mind. i'd say audiences are even more savvy in that way now

[Scott Taylor]

Adam West's Batman was the forerunner to Batgod, though. Nothing phased him. Nothing. And he was prepared for absolutely everything. Yes, it had camp and all the stupid explosion bursts for punches and garish costumes. But none of that would have worked had it not been for the straight man in the bat costume.

[boots]

Adam West's Batman was the forerunner to Batgod, though. Nothing phased him. Nothing. And he was prepared for absolutely everything. Yes, it had camp and all the stupid explosion bursts for punches and garish costumes. But none of that would have worked had it not been for the straight man in the bat costume.

truth

if i were in a life or death situation and could choose any batman to come save me, adam west gets the gig hands down

[Scott Taylor]

truth

if i were in a life or death situation and could choose any batman to come save me, adam west gets the gig hands down

Accurate. And if Batgirl also happens to be there, well, I won't complain at all!

[DanMad1977]

we live in a world where americans didn't go see godzilla, film is dead

Its not the issue here, but Americans not going to see Godzilla isn't the problem (because it would be worse if Japan isn't going to see Godzilla anymore) but Americans making the The fast and the furious movies successful, that is evil...