TV & Film Magazine
Update: July 17, 2007

Thanks for visiting this site, but it is no longer being updated. I've moved on over to http://www.mediapundit.net/ and I invite you to join me over there from now on. Thanks for your understanding.

Shrek Slays Spider-Man 3


  -  Digg!Submit to NetscapeBookmark at del.icio.usreddit

Spider-Man 3 may have taken the all-time opening day and opening weekend titles, but it seemingly doesn't have a prayer at taking the crown that matters the most: all-time worldwide gross.

Titanic has the distinction of being the most successful film ever made, raking in over $1.84 billion worldwide, which includes $600 million in domestic boxoffice sales. Spider-Man 3 in contrast has made only $747m thus far and has plummeted ever since its opening weekend.

To get some idea of what we're talking about, Titanic is one of very few films (perhaps the only one? readers?) to ever see its proceeds go up in its second weekend. Spider-Man 3 dropped over 60% the second weekend and 53% in its third.

SM3 will need $876.7 million (worldwide) just to knock Harry Potter 2 out of 10th place. Last week it brought in $38.8m Mon-Sun, down 53% as I said from the previous week. If it drops by the same amount again, which it figures to do, it'll see just $20.5m this week, and $10.8 the next.

I just don't see it happening.

Sony though is rightfully ecstatic with the franchise up to this point, and they were bound to screw it up eventually. It doesn't matter what you do as your job, you don't get it right every single time out. Fans went to see SM3 on Raimi's street cred with the first two and were moderately disappointed, enough that a block buster was busted from what could have been the biggest film ever down to just another record to be broken at some later date.

With that hefty $258m budget, Sony has only made $115m in profit. Think about that; their total lack of discretionary control over Raimi and the film's budget has only brought them a $115m profit on $747m worldwide gross.

Will they make that mistake again, with SM4? Who knows.

Meanwhile I see that Shrek 3 is a third of the way towards making back its investment already, bringing in $122m for its opening weekend on costs of $160m. This undoubtedly had a negative impact on SM3, but it shouldn't have been as bad as it was, and the message from the audience was quite clear. Most people got home and complained, which means all momentum as far as the audience is concerned for SM4 is burned up.

I hope Sony invests that small profit wisely, cause they certainly blew this one.

Topics: , ,
Like this post? Subscribe to RSS, or get daily emails:

May 22, 2007, 9:07:00 AM
Here's my problem with all of this. In comparison to budgets and gross 115 million is a paltry sum..granted. But in an economy where most are struggling with gas prices and keeping jobs that are going over seas, why is our entertainment field making so much damn money in the first place. The average joe can barely afford an overpriced ticket much less the overpriced heartattacks in buckets they serve you. So do I feel bad that Sony has some poor accounting practices and only made 115 million? HELL NO....what I would like to see is a good film for 3-4 million go to the theaters for 3 or 4 dollars with half priced food...and see THAT MOVIE blow everything else out of the water. Movie budgets are like the Nouveau Riche society....they have money and special effects after previously being b rated, and spend it all on over the top glitz and glamour and big names with a mediocre outcome. SM3 is just another trailerpark ho who won the lottery.


Got something to say? Post a Comment. Got a question or a tip? Send it to me. If all else fails, you can return to the home page.


Recent Posts
Subscribe to RSS Feed Add to Google
Add to Technorati Favorites
Add to Bloglines
Archives
Links
Powered by Blogger
Entertainment Blogs - Blog Top Sites

The text of this article is Copyright © 2006,2007 Paul William Tenny. All rights reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Attribution by: full name and original URL. Comments are copyrighted by their authors and are not subject to the Creative Commons license of the article itself.