SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME Remains At #1 As It Looks To Swing Past AVATAR's Domestic Box Office Record

SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME Remains At #1 As It Looks To Swing Past AVATAR's Domestic Box Office Record

It's another weekend at #1 for Spider-Man: No Way Home, but can the wall-crawler swing past the current domestic box office record held by James Cameron's Avatar? Find more details after the jump...

By JoshWilding - Jan 29, 2022 11:01 AM EST
Filed Under: No Way Home
Source: Deadline

While Scream managed to open at #1 in North America earlier this month, Spider-Man: No Way Home swung straight back to the top of the domestic box office last week and will remain there for the sixth time this weekend. 

It's a spectacular feat, and one that's seen the Sony Pictures/Marvel Studios threequel earn an additional $11 million from Friday to Sunday. That's roughly the same as Star Wars: The Force Awakens at this same point in its release back in 2015/2016, and another record could soon be broken by the web-slinger.

With a current domestic cume of $735.3 million, Spider-Man: No Way Home is nipping at Avatar's heels to become the third highest-grossing movie of all time in North America. That would be an amazing accomplishment, and something Sony could brag about for many years to come. 

It's a mere $25.3 million away from surpassing Avatar's $760.5 million haul, and with no confirmed Digital/Blu-ray release date, the big screen remains the only place fans can relive the action. With awards season fast approaching, we're also anticipating a renewed marketing campaign, so Spidey taking down the Na'vi is by no means outside the realm of possibility. 

Next week, Spider-Man: No Way Home will have to contend with Roland Emmerich's Moonfall and Jackass Forever, neither of which are expected to become runaway hits. This is, however, likely to be the final time we see the superhero at the #1 spot. 

How much higher do you think the latest Spider-Man movie can climb? 

Tom Holland Shares Disappointment With SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME - I Might Have Done Three Days On Location
Related:

Tom Holland Shares Disappointment With SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME - "I Might Have Done Three Days On Location"

SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME Star Charlie Cox Recalls Cut Reference To 2003's DAREDEVIL During His MCU Debut
Recommended For You:

SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME Star Charlie Cox Recalls Cut Reference To 2003's DAREDEVIL During His MCU Debut

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

1 2 3 4
TheWalkingCuban
TheWalkingCuban - 1/29/2022, 11:44 AM
Definitely past 1.7 billion, that’s crazy
bobevanz
bobevanz - 1/29/2022, 11:44 AM
Member berries beats anything. Dolla dolla bill ya'll
Blergh
Blergh - 1/29/2022, 2:20 PM
@bobevanz - it definitely worked, especially since the nostalgia-bait worked excellent into the plot
bobevanz
bobevanz - 1/29/2022, 11:45 AM
Once again, 🖕 day to date. Never again!
JDL
JDL - 1/29/2022, 1:15 PM
@bobevanz - And yet it absolutely made HBO/WB a winner in streaming. BUT since that ship, and it is, imo, the last ship, has sailed I can't see any purpose for it in the future. That said since the purpose of HBO/WB in going day and date had nothing to do with theater box office, theoretically it could happen again.
lordSTALE
lordSTALE - 1/29/2022, 1:43 PM
@JDL - How is HBO Max a winner in streaming? They literally lost almost 2 million subscribers for Q3 of 2021 with day and date releases, and only regained millions of subscribers in Q4 by offering annual subscriptions for just $35
JDL
JDL - 1/29/2022, 2:06 PM
@lordSTALE - They shut out anyone else from entering the market in a major way. It's getting very clear that there will be no other major players in that market. Had they waited then it just would have been Netflix and Disney. That is unless Netflix goes bust which while unlikely is possible even given their one glaring weakness.

Also understand that for WB/HBO being a streamer is even more critical since they are without a network.
Blergh
Blergh - 1/29/2022, 2:35 PM
@JDL - go whole or home, I say.
Either release a film directly for streaming and not in theatres or just in theatres.
It's important to note that studios want max profit but viewers don't respond well to have dual options.
Having both devalues the theatre going experience and makes these films feel like glorified Netflix exclusives to potential viewers.
When I, as a "normal viewer", have the option between watching Spidey or Matrix 4 in theatres I'd pick Spidey because "I can watch Matrix at home anyways".

The box-office speaks for itself, WB devalued its big franchise movies. Suicide Squad, Matrix, Space Jam and Conjuring have been bonafide flops compared to other studios releases like F9, Spidey, Bond, Venon or Shang-Chi certainly proved that even because of Corona they wouldn't neccessarily be flops.

Dune and Godzilla were their only hits but they would have been 1B flicks otherwise

lordSTALE
lordSTALE - 1/29/2022, 4:02 PM
@JDL - I get your new point, but that still doesn't make them "a winner in streaming" when they literally struggled to gain subscribers, then lost almost 2 million subscribers, and only gained those back by DRASTICALLY reducing their prices, and this with the help of completely sacrificing WB's entire 2021 movie slate so they can have big blockbuster streaming exclusives 🤷🏽‍♂️

Not really "a winner in streaming" and more like "a loser of a lot of money just to keep their streaming app alive in the growing marketplace" 🧐
JDL
JDL - 1/29/2022, 9:28 PM
@lordSTALE - They are a winner in that they are going to get the chance to compete and it doesn't look like anyone else that is US based will. Remember the overseas component is important here and in that area they have been doing pretty decently and others who came later, not so much. If you only look at the US and Canada you are overlooking a lot.
JDL
JDL - 1/29/2022, 9:31 PM
@Blergh - "go whole or home, I say." "Either release a film directly for streaming and not in theatres or just in theatres."

In normal times I would agree. These times were not normal.

"It's important to note that studios want max profit but viewers don't respond well to have dual options."

"Having both devalues the theatre going experience and makes these films feel like glorified Netflix exclusives to potential viewers."

"When I, as a "normal viewer", have the option between watching Spidey or Matrix 4 in theatres I'd pick Spidey because "I can watch Matrix at home anyways".

That's nice. It's an opinion though, not a fact.

"The box-office speaks for itself, WB devalued its big franchise movies. Suicide Squad, Matrix, Space Jam and Conjuring have been bonafide flops compared to other studios releases like F9, Spidey, Bond, Venon or Shang-Chi certainly proved that even because of Corona they wouldn't neccessarily be flops."

Those WB films weren't even close in anything you could name other than runtime to the ones you were comparing them to. Good grief.

"Dune and Godzilla were their only hits but they would have been 1B flicks otherwise"

Godzilla might well have done a billion, but Dune ? Seriously ? I just can't see it. But at least 2 or 3 hundred million more I could believe.

This was a business decision. By going this route they are betting 1) that in the long term something like this is going to happen again* and if it did they would not survive intact. They might even end up under water, 2) if they were going to set up a global streamer it would have to be now. In my learned opinion setting the streamer up was much more about long term survival than additional revenue.

*If another pandemic like event hits many theaters are going to go under and once gone WILL NOT RETURN. If screens fall to say, 2/3rd's of what is current, fewer films will get made and those that do will be made more cheaply. What does get made will favor streamers and TV.
Kadara
Kadara - 1/29/2022, 10:25 PM
@JDL - Stares silently from pirate sites 😏
lordSTALE
lordSTALE - 1/30/2022, 12:57 AM
@JDL - Losing a ton of money in both streaming and at the box office in 2021, just for a "CHANCE to compete" makes them a winner for that year? Okay 😉

And this is after looking at their business results worldwide. They took a massive L 🤷🏽‍♂️
JDL
JDL - 1/30/2022, 9:15 AM
@lordSTALE - Short term it is a loss. This is about the long term and fwiw may still fail, the jury is still out.
JDL
JDL - 1/30/2022, 9:16 AM
@Kadara - As I have made clear this was not about short term profits.
JDL
JDL - 1/30/2022, 10:53 AM
@bobevanz @lordSTALE @Blergh @Kadara

One other point. WB did not have the money to do much in the way of P & A. AT&T was not going to help. Any revenues they took in would be needed to finance new productions, pay off debt, etc.. Had they approached the banks they would have either laughed in their faces or quoted terms that no sane studio would chance. A pure theater opening under those circumstances would
have been an unmitigated disaster. The films would have been perceived more as flops (unfairly imo) than they were since the HBO take away of audience excuse would not have been there.

The studio would have either had to shrink to a smallish percentage of its current size or sell it's back catalog which would have doomed it long term.

The other pure non day and date alternative would have been to sit on all of the product until it was "safe". Well guess what, it still ain't all that normal and we are nearing 2 years of this cr*p. Unless they could get alternate financing, that would put them out of production for something like 9 months to a year. MAYBE they would have been able to double up when production restarted but by then the chance to set up a streamer would have evaporated. BUT if the money was somehow available and if they were willing to pay most of the studio employees for a year or so of doing next to nothing, plus giving up on having a major streamer, then that would have been the best option.
DoubleD
DoubleD - 1/29/2022, 11:49 AM
I'm excited for Moonfall can't wait to see it next weekend.

bkmeijer2
bkmeijer2 - 1/29/2022, 11:58 AM
@DoubleD - I like how little they care about spoiler that they make that shot the thumbnail for the trailer
Moriakum
Moriakum - 1/29/2022, 1:40 PM
@DoubleD - It looks like another Emmerich piece of garbage.
Scarilian
Scarilian - 1/30/2022, 4:41 AM
@DoubleD -
It looks like absolute garbage
itzayaboy
itzayaboy - 1/29/2022, 11:49 AM
Please beat Avatar. God I hope the rest of the Avatar movies bomb. I can't stand James Cameron. This movie deserves to be number 1. Although with Cameron being the dude he is he will probably re-release Avatar for the umpteenth time to get the record back. Douchebag.

Anyway, go Spidey!!
ModHaterSLADE
ModHaterSLADE - 1/29/2022, 11:57 AM
Well deserved. Easily one of those MCU movies that's entertaining enough for a re-watch.
bkmeijer2
bkmeijer2 - 1/29/2022, 11:57 AM
I think it would be great to see it pass Avatar on the domestic box office and cross a billion at the foreign box office.

Wonder if Avatar will be re-released though before Avatar 2
TheWalkingCuban
TheWalkingCuban - 1/29/2022, 12:00 PM
@bkmeijer - billion foreign coming soon.
1 2 3 4
View Recorder