Slashdot Mirror

Ever seen Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning? Now tell me, your "normal" motion picture (think ("Live Free or Die Hard") cost $175,000,000 to produce. Star Wreck cost a couple thousand, including CGI, sets, costumes, the whole shebang.

Money does not equal quality. You do not always get what you pay for. If the salesman says "you get what you pay for" hold on to your wallet, sucker. Any Linux-using nerd should know that you don't always pay for what you get, either. I mean, what, $500 for Vista and $0 for the infinitely superior Ubantu.

There's no reason a game should retail at $60 while a movie retails at $15, and no reason why a game needs a big budget. The original DOOM was done by half a dozen guys and nobody has yet to equal its fun, not even the high graphics, big budget successors.

-mcgrew

PS- methinks the ESRB may become gaming's version of the RIAA, eventually existing only to squeeze out new players as the RIAA now does with its fight against P2P and internet radio.

Can't comment on Shrek 2 (it's not out in the UK until the 2nd of July) but based on the opening and Box Office Guru predictions it's already well on it's way to catching Nemo (not that I want it to - the original Shrek was too forced for me and I expect the sequel is all the same gags in a different order!)

Matrix 3 "bombed?"

Sorry, but it did far from bomb. The two matrix sequels were filmed together for a budget of $200 million. That's pretty expensive plus a marketing campaign of about $50-75 million for the two. However, Matrix 2 has taken in over $281 million in the USA alone, covering the costs of both movies (that is WITHOUT dvd/vhs/tv rights sales). Worldwide, it has taken in $457 million.

Therefore, by definition, ANYTHING matrix 3 made was in essense a profit. It was impossible to bomb as the movie was already in the black (i.e. proifiting). That being said, Matrix Revolutions has made $285 million worldwide (again, minus dvd, tv, tie-ins, etc).

If that's a bomb, then that's a bomb i'd love to be responsible for...

Whoops, there was supposed to be an HREF in there.

Crashing into seventh place was the George Clooney/Steven Soderbergh collaboration Solaris which picked up an estimated $6.8M this weekend for a poor per screen average of $2,818. Critics reviews were mixed with most saying Clooney's performance was the highlight of the film, but moviegoers universally panned the film as CinemaScore.com reports that viewers across the board gave the movie an F. Apparently film fans were hoping for something different than what the mega-star and Oscar winning director had to offer.

Addmittedly, I haven't seen the film yet, but it looks suspiciously like another Soderbergh-Clooney "wouldn't-it-be-cool-to-remake" vanity project like Ocean's Eleven. Soderbergh's been coasting on the goodwill from Erin Brokovich and Traffic long enough. Unless he wants to turn into Brian DePalma, he'd better start cranking out hits again, IMHO.

the first SW movie not to make the top ten.

Um... According to this list here, Return of the jedi is at #11 and Empire is #15... So AotC would be the third (of 5) Star wars movies not in the top ten...

Surprising! OUTSTANDING movie. It was, though, definitely a 'sleeper' hit, it had a relatively small (36m) budget, but did $120m+ in the US alone. Frankly, it's a little too highbrow to have been a 'big, big' hit, but it was very well done.

$120 million? Huh? Box Office Guru says it did $12 million:

Gattaca total gross: $12,352,135

Your numbers are a little off, my friend.

Another site is Box Office Guru