Slashdot Mirror


Spidey Knocks Out Harry Potter at Box Office

RasputinAXP writes "According to this Yahoo article, Spider-Man picked up an Amazing $114 million dollars at the box office, squishing Harry Potter's $90.3 million like a bug. More coverage is available at Box Office Prophets' new Weekend Wrapup, including analysis."

368 comments

  1. i remember in the game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    weren't there cheat codes for some special suit or something like that?

  2. Not surprising.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You hype a movie like this enough and you're bound to make astonishing results, money-wise. Most people that went and saw the movie weren't even interested in it as Spider-man fans, they mainly went because their friends declared it was "ohhh sooo coool!".

    I'm sure no one saw these figures coming from a mile away...

    1. Re:Not surprising.... by Com2Kid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Am I like the ONLY person in the world who has not seen ANY hype at all for this movie? I have seen like ONE preview before a movie (I forget which movie it was in fact) and I have seen no ads on TV, no billboards, nothing.

      What hype? Hell I thought that only Geeks and Nerds would even be INTERESTED in the movie, or even know it existed for that matter.

    2. Re:Not surprising.... by Xaoswolf · · Score: 1

      I agree, I saw more ads for The Scorpion King than I did for Spider-Man. The only "hype" I ever saw was when they took out the twin towers.

    3. Re:Not surprising.... by Dexx · · Score: 1

      I've seen a few glass-littered sidewalks under displays where posters used to be, but no posters..

      --
      Feel the fear and do it anyway.
    4. Re:Not surprising.... by r00tarded · · Score: 4, Funny

      actually most of the marketing i saw was in the 80's when i was about six and addicted to the cartoon. those tricky bastards.

    5. Re:Not surprising.... by digitalunity · · Score: 1, Troll

      I once said 'No amount of advertising can compensate for mediocrity'.

      Well...

      I was wrong.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    6. Re:Not surprising.... by bigbadwlf · · Score: 1

      I saw quite a lot of hype for it, but then I watch Space (Canadian sci-fi/geek channel).

      I can't say I'm surprised it blew Harry Potter out of the water. Harry Potter was a kid's movie, while Spider-Man appeals not only to kids, but former kids.

      ...and Kirsten Dunst wasn't in Harry Potter ;)

    7. Re:Not surprising.... by Macrobat · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You hype a movie like this enough and you're bound to make astonishing results, money-wise.
      Yep. This movie was hyped up almost as much as "Howard the Duck" was.

      Most people that went and saw the movie weren't even interested in it as Spider-man fans, they mainly went because their friends declared it was "ohhh sooo coool!".
      I guess this begs the question, why did their friends think it was "ohhh sooo cooool" in the first place? Face it, something doesn't get hyped unless the studios think they'll get a big fan base. Do you really think a giant marketing campaign would help "Iris," or "In the Bedroom", or "My Dinner with Andre?" They're all good movies, but not blockbuster material, no matter how much ad space they get.
      --
      "Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
    8. Re:Not surprising.... by soulsteal · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on being the only slashdotter to successfully boycott the MPAA.

    9. Re:Not surprising.... by seann · · Score: 1

      Space. Great channel, I don't know how I used to live without it.

      They hyped spiderman pretty good on that station, I guess because most, if not all of the people watching that channel Know about spiderman.

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    10. Re:Not surprising.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't someone already address this issue?
      I see it in every spider-man story here.

      There we go, here's the link http://www.baen.com/library/palaver8.htm

    11. Re:Not surprising.... by Com2Kid · · Score: 2

      Hmm? I boycott the RIAA, I do not even listen to their music pirated.

      The MPAA can go fuck itself, but I have to see anything with John Cleese or Robin Williams(being funny) in it.

      On a slightly related note, Death To Smoochie rocked. So did Resident Evil and, err, uh, that other really big action movie that was out right at the same time as RE. Uh, there was a /. discussion on it, but RE left more of an impression on me. ^_^ Oh yah, Blade 2. Wasn't half bad.

      I have serious issues seeing more then 1 movie a week or 2 movies a month, I can't sit still doing absolutely nothing that long not just concurrently but even at nearby intervals. Ugh.

      Thus I have this serious dilemma facing me right now, which movie should I go and see, Episode 2, Scorpion King, or SpiderMan. I _MAY_ be able to squeeze two in there, but I seriously doubt it. . . . Still recovering from my last bout of watching movies almost a month and a half ago, heh.

      (movies are soooo damn mind numbingly dull, even the good ones. Except for the ones with Monty Python in them, they rock. And Robin Williams is so hyper that he could be used in an ER room as an independent resuscitary unit)

    12. Re:Not surprising.... by GrandCow · · Score: 1

      Am I like the ONLY person in the world who has not seen ANY hype at all for this movie? I have seen like ONE preview before a movie (I forget which movie it was in fact) and I have seen no ads on TV, no billboards, nothing.

      It doesn't count if you use a tivo to skip commercials, have add blocking software on your computer, and never leave the glow of your computer monitor to venture outside.

      --
      "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
    13. Re:Not surprising.... by Dimensio · · Score: 2

      I'd have to say Spider-Man. If you're wanting to see Episode 2 in theaters, see it in a month or so when the big crowds have died down, it'll still be there. Spider-Man is worth seeing soon, though try to get a showing without a lot of kids. I hate noisy kids in theaters.

    14. Re:Not surprising.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill your sig, once you realize moderation is for the end user not the author of the comment, well then you look like a conceited idiot, and while that might be true, such direct truth is unseemly in polite culture.

    15. Re:Not surprising.... by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      It doesn't count if you use a tivo to skip commercials, have add blocking software on your computer, and never leave the glow of your computer monitor to venture outside.

      Can't afford a TV, no ad blockign software, ride my bike 4.5~6mi a day.

    16. Re:Not surprising.... by LadyLucky · · Score: 2
      No, you're not.

      I had never even heard of the film.

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
    17. Re:Not surprising.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You hype a movie like this enough"

      The point is this: this movie out-grossed Harry Potter. And if you truly believe Harry Potter didn't go for as much hype as they could (with everything they do, the movie not being any exception whatsoever), then you've got some brain memory problems to deal with.

    18. Re:Not surprising.... by Golias · · Score: 2

      When I saw it, there were a lot of young kids in the theater, (most of them sitting waaaay up front, as all kids like to do). It was stunning how well behaved they were through the whole film. They were too busy watching the movie to make much noise (other than loud applause at the end of each fight, beginning with the one between P.P. and Flash Thompson in the school hall).

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    19. Re:Not surprising.... by 13Echo · · Score: 1

      Maybe we just don't watch much television? I know that I didn't see any advertising.

    20. Re:Not surprising.... by nobody69 · · Score: 1

      The kids at the 1:30 show my wife and I went to were very well behaved, although the one at the end of our aisle was a little too young to follow the plot so every once and while you'd hear something like "Why is [Aunt May] sad?". Nothing like when we saw "Prince of Egypt" though when a kid in the back said "I pooped" with what can only be described as pride in his voice.

      --
      "Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
    21. Re:Not surprising.... by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

      Definitely not just you. I KNEW it was coming out last year. I was EAGER to see it. I couldn't figure out WHEN it was coming out for the life of me. I had to put real effort into figure out when it was coming out. The website didn't have a date (I HATE movie websites that don't have a promminent date). The few trailors I did see were all the "Coming Soon" variety. It was driving me crazy.

      I finally figured it out from a Discovery Channel Spidersaresocool promo tie in.

    22. Re:Not surprising.... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      I'd say Ep2 and Spider-Man. I saw spider-man and really liked it. What I was the most happy about was the fact that they kept it true as possible to the comic book. Somethings were different, but overall I think they did a great job.

      For you business students out there... here's a good case for doing your homework and purposely buying junk bonds...

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    23. Re:Not surprising.... by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      For you business students out there... here's a good case for doing your homework and purposely buying junk bonds...

      I thought that we were supposed to be convincing them to commit ritualistic suicide?

      I know that I have. (been encouraging the business students that is)

    24. Re:Not surprising.... by Krimsen · · Score: 2

      You're not the only one. I only knew it was coming out because of some unrelated mailing lists I am on kept mentioning it.

  3. Wonderful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now the MPAA has more $ to pay their lawyers and congressmen.

  4. Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is what it's all about. Spidey's new movie had a much higher quality cast and plot. William Defoe is the only reason I went to see this movie, and he did not dissapoint. Shame Boondock Saints never did so well.

    1. Re:Quality by mokiejovis · · Score: 1

      WILLEM Defoe. WILLEM.

    2. Re:Quality by Ledskof · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was more impressed with Tobey Maguire's performance than Willem Dafoe. I know Dafoe was directed that way but I was detecting a bit of desire for the same overwhelming scenes that Jack Nicholson delivered(and stole the movie with) in Batman. Maybe if Dafoe would have had the same kind of sreen time Nicholson had in Batman he would have came closer to it, but I don't really put them(Dafoe, Nicholson) in the same tallent boat. Anyhow, Maguire is a very tallented actor and I think he did a good job and gave a great personality to spider-man. I was a little disappointed in how Maguire's range wasn't stressed by this movie though, but with how dry some of the dialogue he had to work with was, I think he did a great job. Maybe the sequel will let him peg out.

      Actually to the guy that corrected this post, it's Willem Dafoe, not Willem Defoe. But who really gives a rats ass about actors' names. That's a bit of a shallow thing to get worked up over.

      --
      This is my sig. The post is over.
    3. Re:Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Willem DAFOE. DAFOE. If you're going to criticize someone on spelling, at least get it right yourself.

      Oh, and by the way, his birth name was William, so the original poster wasn't too far off.

    4. Re:Quality by Golias · · Score: 2
      I disagree.

      Nicholson's joker was just that: Nicholson's joker. He lacked all the tragic pathos of the best Joker stories from DC comics, and was basically the same silly imp that Nicholson played in "The Witches of Eastwick", "One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest", and "The Shining".

      Dafoe, on the other hand, played the dual sides of the Green Goblin perfectly. His whole face changed instantly whenever the goblin took over his psyche, and back again just as quickly. No lighting tricks, no make-up, just good acting.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    5. Re:Quality by trixillion · · Score: 1

      Umm, Having not seen the movie, you can take this with a grain of salt. However, Tobey Maguire's dry and wooden acting ruined, A Cider House Rules, for me. I hope he has improved a lot... he is one of the primary reasons I haven't bothered to go watch this one.

  5. Well by elite+lamer · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Common sense...Spider-Man was a good movie on it's own, it didn't NEED it's huge franchise to make people buy tickets.

    --
    Oops!
  6. Excellent by Cow4263 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is fabulous. This will prove Sam Rami as a real director capable of handling the big flicks and making them profitable. Maybe now someone will fund Evil Dead 4... maybe...

    1. Re:Excellent by Pedro+Picasso · · Score: 1

      Negative. Evil Dead is a trilogy. It's fine that way. Leave it. Bruce Campbell has said often that he wouldn't care to do another one, and honestly AoD was not that great a movie. The chainsaw, the shotgun, the one-liners: they were great. Let them just be a great three movies, and don't overdo it, I say.

    2. Re:Excellent by skeller · · Score: 2, Informative
      Negative. Evil Dead is a trilogy. It's fine that way. Leave it. Bruce Campbell has said often that he wouldn't care to do another one

      Uh... really? The fact is, there was always an Evil Dead 4 planned, especially considering the original ending (where Ash wakes up in post-apocalyptic England). Furthermore, according to Bruce Campbell's official site:

      "Let me be clear, however, on one point: I'd be happy to do it - so would Sam, but let's not beat that dead horse any more until it becomes a reality...IF it ever does."

      So, both Raimi and Campbell would like to do one, and I know I'd love to see one. And, given the series' tendency to "alter" endings, I think we could get the ED4 Raimi had planned. It would rock.

    3. Re:Excellent by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

      I think there are these factors that made the movie really good:

      1. Director Sam Raimi is a diehard Spider-Man comics fanatic and you can tell from the movie he loved the subject matter.

      2. Because people knew Raimi was a Spider-Man fan, Raimi had to do a movie that lived up to the expectations of the millions of Spider-Man comics readers over the years.

      And it appears he has succeeded beyond even Sony Pictures' wildest dreams.

    4. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be dumb, like the other three movies.

      Army of Darkness was funny, but adding another movie is pointless.

    5. Re:Excellent by K9DI · · Score: 1

      My family and I went to see Spiderman and I must say it is done alot better than the Spiderman movies I saw on TV as a kid in the 1970's. I cannot wait for the sequel or for this one to come out on DVD!! Then I will really be able to see it instead of just listening to it as I did Friday evening. (Yes I am almost completely blind and work with a trained dog guide).
      73
      de
      K9DI

      --
      73 de Wayne K9DI es Leader Dog Patriot
    6. Re:Excellent by 13Echo · · Score: 1

      I specifically recall him saying nearly the exact same thing at a local book signing for "If Chins Could Kill: Confessions of a B-Movie Actor." Given Raimi's excellent job on Spiderman, I can see his future being very good- toward the level of being able to direct just about any action film that he desires. :)

  7. Not suprised by Dalaram · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Im not particularly suprised, altho the parallel definitely exists. While Harry potter was catering to a much more central audience (I.E the people who read the books), Spiderman is something that everyone can identify with. Im pretty sure we've all seen the comics, the cartoons, the video games. There is just a lot more Spidey propaganda. Now, what I want to see is in 2 weeks, how much Episode 2 crushes the market...

    --
    all my .sig are suck
    1. Re:Not suprised by agent+oranje · · Score: 1

      While Harry potter was catering to a much more central audience (I.E the people who read the books), Spiderman is something that everyone can identify with.

      Until I read Spiderman, I thought I was the only mutant superhero capable of shooting webs and flying through the air with the greatest of ease. But now, I know I'm not alone!

      Seriously, though... I don't really think that the momentum of Spiderman will keep up. I'll never go to see it, because I really don't care! It looks to be good eye-candy, and the redhead in it is really hot, but other than that, its "just another action film," only this time, it's with Spiderman!

      And everyone can relate to a spiderman, but who has ever heard of a "wizard." Sheesh!

      -agent q. oranje

      --
      -agent oranje.
    2. Re:Not suprised by SimplyCosmic · · Score: 2

      Or more specifically how well ATOC does during its opening compared to TPM did.

      Prior to TPM, the hype machine was in full swing and everyone, even the non-geek-fanatics, was interested in not only seeing it, but on opening night.

      But I just get the feeling that's no longer true for ATOC, thanks to the letdown that TPM was for the hardened fans, and in many ways, it was the contagious enthusiasm of the fanatics that carried over to the general populace.

      Personally, I'll go see AOTC, but I certainly won't wait in a long line for it, and absolutely seeing it openning night isn't the priority that it once was. I don't doubt that ATOC will do well, but it's performance will be rather level over its run, not quite explosive during that opening weekend that the other Star Wars films will be.

      And while there are still hardcore fans, their numbers will most likely have been reduced, at least in part.

      Just for some numbers, a quick look at Box Office Mojo shows that The Phantom Menace did $64,820,970 in its opening weekend, compared to Spider-Man's $114 million. As it stands, Spidey is already at 1/4 of TPMs $431,088,297 gross to date number.

    3. Re:Not suprised by dy_dx · · Score: 1

      Episode 2 probably won't beat this for the same reason Episode I didn't...they're mid-week releases. Weekend gross statistics are inherently heavily biased toward movies that are released on a Friday (and also biased toward newer movies due to inflation).

    4. Re:Not suprised by SimplyCosmic · · Score: 2

      Even when you look at single day records, Spidey beats The Phantom Menace>'s $28.5 million (on the Wednesday it opened) with its $39.3 (Friday) and $43.7 million (Saturday) totals.

    5. Re:Not suprised by Liora · · Score: 1

      I'm not surprised either, but for a different reason. I went and saw the show last night at 11:30. Despite the fact that Harry Potter probably has just as big a fan base as Spiderman, Harry Potter's fan base is a lot younger. I didn't see any kids at the showing I went to, and I bet that was because it was so late. This statistic just means that more adults decided to see the movie over the weekend because more shows were offered later. Spiderman went all day with lots of shows, but many theaters probably didn't bother packing in so many Harry Potter showings in the later hours.

      That makes that stat a particularly meaningless comparison to me. I am interested to see how the numbers go after several weeks though, although I can see how those numbers could be skewed likewise. Mayabe in a few months the comparison will be worthwhile...

      --
      Liora
    6. Re:Not suprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Episode 2 is going to be interesting - I don't think it will do as well as some people think. There are *lots* of unhappy fans after the last movie and this one looks more like a teeny-bopper flick than anything else.

      Apparently the Republic was brought down by teenage angst. Bleh.

    7. Re:Not suprised by DavittJPotter · · Score: 1

      Many I have talked/chatted/emailed with have the same feeling as I do about AoTC

      Yawn.

      TPM was a giant letdown - totally incoherent storytelling, a jumbled together collage of CGI, a pretty teen actress falling in love with a 9 year old boy (that alone ruined it for me; that and Jake Lloyd's cries of "yippee!").

      Natalie Portman, while good in "The Professional", and especially her movie with Susan Sarandon (sorry, can't remember the name) came off as an actress in TPM. The queen wasn't regal, she was stilted and pompous. As Padme, she was more of a little conciousness to lead we viewers along Lucas' little thought pattern.

      The best part of TPM was Darth Maul - and they killed him off right away, instead of letting him build into a good, sinister character that perhaps would have challenged Anakin's favor with Darth Sidious/Senator-Emperor Palpatine.

      I love the original trilogy - yeah, they're not incredibly highbrow material, either, but the story and plotline was more coherent. Unfortunately, RoTJ was a clear harbinger of Lucas' willingness to sell out for the tie-ins (Ewoks!).

      Sorry, I'm ranting here, but I for one will not see this movie in the theater; I haven't decided whether or not I'll see it when it comes out on DVD. A $2.50 rental may be worth it for the CGI and Jedi duels.

      --
      "If there's hope, it lies in the proles..."
    8. Re:Not suprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one who felt like they've lived Spiderman's life (sans the radioactive spider bite, of course!)?

    9. Re:Not suprised by cornflux · · Score: 1
      Im pretty sure we've all seen the comics, the cartoons, the video games.
      Actually, I don't really identify with Spider Man... I've never read a comic, seen the cartoon, or played the video games.

      I think the reason it's done so well is that it has the appearance of being a cut above the heap of shit that Hollywood has dumped on the public, lately. That, and people finally have something fun to be excited about again.

      At least there was Amelie.

    10. Re:Not suprised by Golias · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Actually the reason for the film's success, and why it will continue to succeed all summer, is that it is far from "just another action film".

      It's really a coming-of-age drama disguised as an action flick.

      Spider-Man is, and really always has been, the story of Peter Parker becoming a man. The fact that Parker becomes a super-hero serves to raise his private struggles to mythic proportions, but that's essentially all it is. The turning point of the story is not where he gets bitten by the spider, but when he is confronted by the consequences of his failure to rise to his responsibility to his fellow man.

      If you never go see it, too bad. You are missing the best "summer event" movie to come along in decades.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    11. Re:Not suprised by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1

      Sure, but a lot more people go to the movies on a friday or saturday than on a wednesday.

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    12. Re:Not suprised by Cow4263 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, the movie was quite good and very well done (as one might expect from Sam Rami).

      However, one part was really just a blatent oversight. Right after MJ gets off work, they stand and talk in the street for a while. We see the camera facing MJ and a car passes her. A moment later, the camera changes to face Parker and *PRESTO* car is gone. This happens with every single car that passes (about 8 or so, I'd say). Thats my only real nit-pick with the flick.

      Overall, very solid stuff. Should become a good franchise. Hopefully, this will wave on a era of *good* comic based movies. We'll see how the Hulk fares next summer...

    13. Re:Not suprised by Golias · · Score: 1

      Heh. If you watched it often enough to start hunting for continuity errors in the editing before the first weekend is over, that's praise enough!

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  8. Spider-Man is a Super Hero for Pussies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only the nerdy nerds read Spider-Man, the cool nerds read X-Men

    1. Re:Spider-Man is a Super Hero for Pussies by Jebus_the_spork · · Score: 0

      i was lead to believe that being a nerd banned you from being cool in the first place,

      therefore you cannot be a so-called "cool nerd"

      --
      I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows - Bart Simpson
    2. Re:Spider-Man is a Super Hero for Pussies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Wonder Woman was the pussy hero....

  9. Where's the Jon Katz review? by Pave+Low · · Score: 5, Funny

    this movie would have been perfect for Katz to pontificate about the ramifcations from 9/11 on the setting of the movie to how Peter Parker was really just like a Columbine geek, but with superpowers.

    --
    SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
    1. Re:Where's the Jon Katz review? by rmohr02 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I assumed there had already been one--I checked the box to exclude his stories from my page about a year ago. I suggest you do the same--you don't even have to know he exists anymore.

    2. Re:Where's the Jon Katz review? by baywulf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interestingly enough, one of the early Spider-Man trailers online had some bank robbers escaping on a helicopter only to be strung up on a web between the World Trade Center towers by Spider-Man. After the 9/11 incident, they quickly pulled that one and replaced with other one.

    3. Re:Where's the Jon Katz review? by spezz · · Score: 1
      Shut up, man. He'll hear you and write the damn thing. Months and months of Arachnidmouth.

    4. Re:Where's the Jon Katz review? by NeMon'ess · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Uh huh. That entire sequence was shot specifically and only for that trailer. It was never meant to be in the movie. The trailer was so successful that the sequence was going to be incorporated into the movie but after 9/11 it was pulled entirely.

    5. Re:Where's the Jon Katz review? by dazed-n-confused · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Be careful what you wish for...

    6. Re:Where's the Jon Katz review? by _UnderTow_ · · Score: 1

      no shit. I checked that wonderful box right around the time metallica was suing napster. I believe it was his childish rant about the unfairness of it all that pushed me over the edge.

      What about the rest of you that have katz blocked? do you remember the story that broke the camel's back?

  10. Better link by Riskable · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's a better link with all sorts of box-office statistics here

    I can't believe TItanic made that much!

    --
    -Riskable
    "Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
    1. Re:Better link by Metrollica · · Score: 0

      Another site is Box Office Guru

      --



      --Metrollica
  11. Pretty large bug.. by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would say that 114 is only 26% more than 90.
    Calling that "squash like a bug" is not only bad journalism, it also shows that the person writing this has no feel for numbers.

    If this was processor speeds we are talking about, the difference would be barely perceptable....

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Pretty large bug.. by Duke+of+URL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Journawhatilism? This is Slashdot. They don't even care about spelling. It's entertainment. Laugh a little :)

    2. Re:Pretty large bug.. by gamorck · · Score: 0

      Yes but that 26% accounts for about 24 million dollars. That sounds like squashing it like a bug to me.... :-)

      J

      --
      I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
    3. Re:Pretty large bug.. by sgtsanity · · Score: 1

      Well, considering that the audience is older than the audience for Harry Potter, and that younger audiences are more likely to see a movie the weekend it is released, I'd say that this is a phenomonal showing compared to Harry Potter. This should also have some longetivity, at least until AOTC comes out. :)

    4. Re:Pretty large bug.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling that "squash like a bug" is not only bad journalism, it also shows that the person writing this has no feel for numbers.

      If this was processor speeds we are talking about, the difference would be barely perceptable....


      Or perhaps you have no feel for money. $24 million is a lot of happy meals. The difference is that it's not a processor speed, it's a sales total. Profit comes after expense. The first big chunk of the money brought in from the sale of something goes to paying off the expenses. Raising the amount of money that is brought in a little bit has a big impact on profit.

    5. Re:Pretty large bug.. by thelexx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We'll be sure to consult with you on the exact meaning of colloquial expressions in the future. And speaking as the most powerful bug in the two universes, I'd like to see this Spider-whoever try it with me!

      LEXX

      BTW - It was a bit of irony that the expression 'squash like a bug' was used to describe how a movie _about_ a bug (sorta) performed at the box office. Try using your feel for humor before pounding your chest next time.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    6. Re:Pretty large bug.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could calculate the mean and standard deviation for opening weekend ticket sales, and look at the corresponding z-scores for Harry Potter and Spider-Man, instead of comparing them directly, putz. A perfect 1600 score on the SATs is "only 33% more" than a score of 1200, yet saying that the difference is minor is simply ludicrous. The situation here is similar; comparing the money intakes directly is just absurd. I suggest YOU get a feel for numbers, a few statistics classes would do you good.

    7. Re:Pretty large bug.. by IvyMike · · Score: 2

      "No feel for numbers" is relative to the problem domain: If these were marathon times we were talking about, someone slicing 26% off the current record would be unthinkable. Beating a box office record by 26% isn't that insane, but it is pretty good.

    8. Re:Pretty large bug.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      congrats
      you are so much more _nerd_ than anyone else
      you are the _nerdest_ of them all

      could it be that you are, in fact, a S C E N E W H O R E ?

    9. Re:Pretty large bug.. by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree. 26% is a big difference. Consider the difference between 1st and also ran in the gold medal heat of the Olympics' 100 meters is usually something less than 15% faster than last place (unless the poor sap falls and doesn't finish). 26% is a pretty big margin. Also consider the sheer volume. 26% of 90 million dollars is indeed a lot of happy meals. It is also a lot of Hummers, Ferraris, or (insert favorite sports car). Also consider that the afore mentioned 90 million was the record, and nearly defeated in 67% of the time. Also consider that the 90 million was done on something like 8% more screens. Add it all together and that 26% is being very kind to the other four-eyed geek.

      --
      Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
    10. Re:Pretty large bug.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You died. Ha-ha, you senile piece of shit.

      You blew me up first, though =./

    11. Re:Pretty large bug.. by Glytch · · Score: 2

      Doubly ironic that someone called Lexx is pointing this out. :)

    12. Re:Pretty large bug.. by Fjord · · Score: 1

      Uh, you do know you died right?

      --
      -no broken link
    13. Re:Pretty large bug.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, ok... gimme those 24 millions to me, the difference is "unperceptable"

    14. Re:Pretty large bug.. by Sirius25 · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but $24M seems like a lot to me!!

    15. Re:Pretty large bug.. by Carbonite · · Score: 1

      26% is a big difference. Consider the difference between 1st and also ran in the gold medal heat of the Olympics' 100 meters is usually something less than 15% faster than last place (unless the poor sap falls and doesn't finish)

      At the 2000 Olympics the difference between 1st place (Maurice Greene, 9.87s) and last place (Kim Collins, 10.17s) was a mere 3%. For the sake of completeness I'll mention that Aziz Zakari didn't finish the race, but he's fast enough that it still have been within 4%.

      The point is that 26% is>/b> a big difference.

      --
      ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
    16. Re:Pretty large bug.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if you get a 24% raise from your job, thats just kinda small, huh? No bid deal then.. We'll let ya stick with your 3% raise if it doesn't matter all that much.

  12. Short Lived Title by bflame · · Score: 1

    With the new Star Wars movie coming out in two weeks it will be a short lived record.

    1. Re:Short Lived Title by pcmacman · · Score: 1

      Nah, you see when people go to the theater and find that star wars has already been sold out they will immediatly flock to see spidey... I know I would.

    2. Re:Short Lived Title by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

      yeah, we already know from phantom menace that a shitty starwars movie will bring in the money all the same.

      So its like they cant lose.

    3. Re:Short Lived Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm...interesting theory, but it won't hold true. Myself and the rest of my SW friends won't be seeing it opening weekend. There's no desire anymore. Lucas sucks the big one.

      Bad acting + lame story == who cares!

    4. Re:Short Lived Title by SimplyCosmic · · Score: 2

      According to the records, The Phantom Menace made $64,820,970 during its openning weekend, and that was with all the hype and excitement that was going on at the time, with fans lining up for months ahead of time.

      Unless Attack of the Clones can not only get beyond the general bad feeling that TPM left us with, and double its previous film's openning weekend intake, it won't manage it.

      ATOC will make a boatload of money, but it's highly unlikely that it will undergo the opening explosion that Spidey is enjoying.

    5. Re:Short Lived Title by SparkyMartin · · Score: 1

      SW:AOTC is opening on a Thursday so it will be hard pressed to make beat spideys' three day total.

      Besides, the last movie left a bad taste in people's mouths' and they wont be rushing to see it asap-they'll wait until the crowd's die down, or wait for a cheap tuesday nite, etc.

    6. Re:Short Lived Title by Brendor · · Score: 1

      Unless Attack of the Clones can not only get beyond the general bad feeling that TPM left us with, and double its previous film's openning weekend intake, it won't manage it.

      I saw both Harry Potter and Spider-Man in the same venue (United Arists THX @ 14th St./Union Square in NYC) on the 3rd and 2nd nights of release respectively, around 10:00pm. In November, I was hoping too see a Star Wars trailer. The final trailer before HP was Forbidden love and Clone War played before Spidey.

      The fanboys who were sitting on my right at Harry Potter snickered "It's going to suck as much as the last one." While it may be indicative of people being excited about Spider-man, its worth noting that a large portion of the crowd cheered at the first sight of the Lucasfilm Logo saturday evening.

      People will see AotC. The latest previews that have been pounding TV and the net have shown glimpses of an epic Star Wars movie in the vein of the original trilogy. Think vintage star destroyers lifting off for battle at sunset, Angst-ridden 20 somethings name Skywalker riding hover vehicles alone on Tatooine, Kenobi arm chopping in the cantina and Elder Jedi's complaining about the youngins. Think "As my first act, I will create a grand army of the Republic, It would be living a lie, I can't do that Anikin; I can't do that - can you? ." Menace's peace negotioations and pre imperial-revolution ground battle were not on the same scale. "I will not condone a course of action that will lead us to war; We haven't much time; Begin landing your troops."

      I think AotC has plenty of buzz on its side and will probably live up to it for a large percentage of the public. Lucas has a co-writer this time around which i helping the dialog, and the material seems to be fairly action packed

      .
    7. Re:Short Lived Title by jjsoh · · Score: 1

      Thursday?!

      I thought this was a slip until I glanced over my calendar and realized that you're right.

      Has there ever been a movie that opened on a Thursday before (not including special premieres)? I'm only familiar with Wednesday's and Friday's. Odd move.

  13. Spiderman by SavingPrivateNawak · · Score: 0, Troll

    Where was Spiderman when we needed him anyway...

    Yes America, keep faith in super-heroes, they are all what you need...

  14. Please explain how... by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please explain how the results for this weekend have been computed. It is still in the afternoon on Sunday when I write this.

    1. Re:Please explain how... by Niksie3 · · Score: 0

      ever heard of timezones? It is still in the afternoon on Sunday where I write this.

      --
      Sig you!
    2. Re:Please explain how... by Bytenik · · Score: 1

      Who cares about timezones? You can't compute the correct total for the WHOLE COUNTRY until the day is over in the WHOLE COUNTRY.

      Someone is doing some extrapolation to get these numbers.

      --

      "Scientists prove we were never here."
      -- Devo

    3. Re:Please explain how... by IncohereD · · Score: 1

      It's amazing what statisticians will claim as fact nowadays, but they're usually pretty bang-on. That's why you know the results to elections before all the votes are counted (at least, most of the time ;)).

      The results claimed on sunday afternoon are usually pretty accurate, because you can predict the behaviour of groups of people, especially those as predictable as movie-going Americans. Barring some major disaster, people will follow their ways.

    4. Re:Please explain how... by Foggy+Tristan · · Score: 1

      Sunday has always been when weekend gross estimates are released. IMDB's lead article on Monday will be just the estimates, with the real grosses the lead news story for Tuesday. Estimates are usually pretty accurate, but a couple of weeks ago, the estimates showed Life, Or Something Like It beating Jason X, while the real grosses had it the other way around.

      --
      Beware typoes.
    5. Re:Please explain how... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw 'est.' before the $114+ million that Spider-Man earned. So, maybe they calculated 90% and estimated the rest?

      Who knows.. you'll find out tomorrow anyway. :P

  15. Spiderman's Response by DarkHelmet · · Score: 4, Funny

    Spider sense... tingling.
    Harry Potter... bitchslapped.

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    1. Re:Spiderman's Response by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 5, Funny

      Spider-man! Spider-man! Makes more money than Rowling can. Gets to lay Kirsten Dunst! Sequel assured, in a few months. Watch out! Here comes the Spider-man! In Summer, 2002, movies were showing.
      George Lucas: What happen??
      Rick McCallum: Somebody set up us the blockbuster.
      Rick McCallum: We get phone call.
      George Lucas: What?
      Rick McCallum: Main screen turn on.
      George Lucas: It's you!!
      Sam Raimi: How are you gentlemen??
      Sam Raimi: All your demographic are belong to us!
      George Lucas: What you say??
      Sam Raimi: You are on the way to bankruptcy.
      Sam Raimi: You have no chance to make up for Phantom Menace, make your sequel!
      Sam Raimi: Ha ha ha!
      George Lucas: Take off every merchandise.
      Rick McCallum: You know what you doing??
      George Lucas: For great profit
      Geroge Lucas: move merchandise.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Spiderman's Response by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 2

      Nicely done- I was laughing.

      graspee

    3. Re:Spiderman's Response by peter_gzowski · · Score: 3, Funny

      Gets to lay Kirsten Dunst!

      I guess action truly is his reward...

      --
      "Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
    4. Re:Spiderman's Response by gabec · · Score: 1

      lol... i actually tried to continue the spider-man themesong on to the george lucas conversation :/ totally didn't work. funny for the first line or two though!

    5. Re:Spiderman's Response by jcsehak · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Sam Raimi: All your demographic are belong to us!

      Classic. Laughed my ass off.

      for the uninitiated: allyourbase.org.

      --

      c-hack.com |
    6. Re:Spiderman's Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its not a theme song, but a song by They Might Be Giants, TMBG also did a song called particle man which has like the same melody.

  16. Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spiderman made more because he already had his spiderman powers and he didn't have to travel all the way from the UK plus he didn't have to learn magic first, like Harry, so it was easier for him to go pick up so much money at the box offices.
    He also wears a disguise so people don't know his true identity and he can always say to the cops: hey it wasn't me picking up over 120 million dollars, musta been some crazy fan or whatever or perhaps it was Harry Potter

  17. Measure of popularity, or of seats available? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming sold-out shows at prime-time, that $114 million figure simply indicates how many seats were available, not how popular the movie was.

  18. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Milkyman · · Score: 1

    You're saying Jason X has more value than spider-man? Have you ever read spider-man comics? Do you even read comics? If you did you'd realize that they are not just fluff for teenagers. Spider-man was always the most human of heroes despite his powers.

  19. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by gamorck · · Score: 0

    Original films like Jason X? Are you insane? Did somebody beat the shit of out you this morning and you just have yet to wake from the daze? My god man - its a STUPID ACTION HORROR FLICK which should have been left to DIE MANY YEARS AGO.

    ROFLMAO! I still can't believe you mentioned Jason X>!?!?!?! Hahahaha. That movie is the biggest piece of trash to hit movie screen since the its prequel.

    I think it is you who needs to reevaluate their views and opinions.

    J

    --
    I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
  20. So Nerdy, so Slashdot... by SavingPrivateNawak · · Score: 0

    It's the story of a guy that gets bitten by a spider, then gets superpowers, then pick up a chick because of these and save America/=The world.

    Message to nerds/geeks: You just have to wait for superpowers to fall on you. There is no way else you can interest a girl. This movie praises you, do not change a thing. Just wait.

    Message to girls: nerds are cool, try to speak to them. (This is a disguised message to nerds as it will make them have a good opinion on the movie too...)

    1. Re:So Nerdy, so Slashdot... by Planesdragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Message to nerds/geeks: You just have to wait for superpowers to fall on you. There is no way else you can interest a girl. This movie praises you, do not change a thing. Just wait.

      Almost. But Peter got Mary Jane intersted by standing up to Flash & just being a nice guy all of those years--not by being spider-man.

      ;) So, the message is "talk to the girl." Heck, he even has his rich best friend steal the girl because he never says anything--what more of a "make your move" message do you want than that?

    2. Re:So Nerdy, so Slashdot... by GearheadX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Spidey has never been about the keen super powers. The series has always been about the problems that arise when an otherwise normal guy gets bitten by the bug, as it were, to go out and try to make a difference in whatever way he can.

      He's constantly having to sew up his costume when he gets it torn up... he's misplacing his civilian clothes.. having to deal with hiding his costume because he's not a quick change artist.

      Peter Parker is just some average Joe from New York who wants to actually _do_ something... the fact that he can stick to things and throw a Volkswagon Bug are just chrome.

    3. Re:So Nerdy, so Slashdot... by Nept · · Score: 1

      the only way peter could stand up to flash was through his superpowers

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    4. Re:So Nerdy, so Slashdot... by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      doesn't matter. The point was that he stood up.

      In my expereince, a woman who CAN find someone atractive for fighthing WILL find that someone atractive regardless if they win or not.

    5. Re:So Nerdy, so Slashdot... by Nept · · Score: 1

      Yes it does matter. He wouldn't have stood up if he didn't have superpowers.

      Okay, maybe he would have, even though in every other scene he let people push him around. But what if he had? He would have been knocked down on the first hit, and had his head flushed in a toilet. I should know...

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
  21. Useless measurement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the rate that movie ticket prices increase (what does it cost to see a movie these days, 9 bucks?) no record will stand for long. Hell, pretty soon it will only take 10 people to go see "Mango 2: Mango Meets the Churchlady" or whatever awful SNL movie they make next to gross $30 million.

  22. This number is meaningless by fahrvergnugen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Saying that film A made more money than film B is in the end a meaningless metric for determining how much overall success a film has enjoyed. The reason I say this is that ticket prices increase over time. This means that Titanic's $601 million, while impressive, is in the end less impressive than E.T.'s $435 million.

    Tickets cost roughly $5, if not less, in 1982.
    This means that roughly 87 million tickets were sold to E.T.

    Tickets cost roughly $8, if not more, in 1997. This means that Titanic sold only approximately 78 million tickets, 9 million less than E.T. did fifteen years prior.

    (obviously these are very rough numbers, and don't take into account many other factors such as matinee prices, 2nd run theaters, etc. but they give you the idea)

    Following a gross, without accounting for inflation in ticket prices, is ultimately meaningless. It would be much more meaningful to pay attention to how many actual tickets were sold, but 87 million is a much less impressive number than 601 million, so it'll never happen.

    I can dream, though.

    --
    Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
    1. Re:This number is meaningless by Paradoxish · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Meaningless if this story were comparing Spiderman to E.T., but not meaningless when comparing it to a movie that was released only a few months ago. Ticket prices haven't risen significantly (or at all, probably) since Harry Potter is a very recent movie.

      So I agree that money made is a useless figure for comparing movies with a big gap between release times (10-15 years or more), but when comparing recent movies it serves its purposes well enough. I suppose it's most useful to suits, though...

      "I know we're making a movie like spider-man, and maybe spider-man sold 87 million tickets.. but how much MONEY did it make?"

      Still, it works for this comparison.

      --
      If you need to interpret my post, then you don't get it.
    2. Re:This number is meaningless by jred · · Score: 1

      I'd be more interested in the #s if they took costs out of them. Movie A makes 20 mil., and cost 600k. Movie B makes 40 mil., but cost 35 mil. to make. I'm more impressed w/ Movie A.

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    3. Re:This number is meaningless by rabidphilosophy · · Score: 1

      I agree. You can see the adjusted rates at boxofficemojo.
      Gone With the Wind from 1939 is still #1 with $1,146,081,811 adjusted. Thats only $198,654,225 unadjusted.

      --
      God sucks at running this place. Impeach God at
    4. Re:This number is meaningless by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • It would be much more meaningful to pay attention to how many actual tickets were sold

      Very insightful. Another thing that is no doubt screwing the figures is the curse that is season tickets. I simply will not go to a theatre that has any kind of weekly/monthly/annual ticket option any more. It's bad enough trying to pick the slot with the fewest mall rats without having to worry about people who haven't even paid to see the film, have absolutely no interest in actually watching it, and who are treating the theatre as a convenient spot to gather, chat and (god help us) breed. Grrr.

      Incidentally, the CGI in the trailers for both this film and AOTC really sucks. I mean, there were better looking FX in Ghostbusters. Maybe we could do with a little less of pushing the animators' limits, and start doing less, but really well. I like animation and all, but I like it as animation, not as shoddy ersatz psuedo-reality.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:This number is meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's even more impressive when you consider the fact that more people have the disposable income to see movies today. In 1939, it was a "big deal" to go see Gone with the Wind. Today, seeing a movie is something I do when I'm bored - often regardless of the actual quality of the movie (usually low).

    6. Re:This number is meaningless by Fishstick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Check out the Frontline episode, the monster that ate hollywood.

      It *is* all about the opening weekend gross these days, according to this story.

      Have risk-averse MBAs killed Hollywood's magic? Studio executives, producers, filmmakers, and critics talk about how the movie business, and movies themselves, have changed.
      John Pierson, the man behind many an indie, takes stock of what's "independent" today. Plus, interviews with Elvis Mitchell, Allison Anders, Kevin Smith, and Michael Douglas.
      The Atlantic Monthly's Charles C. Mann on what Hollywood has learned from Napster. Plus, industry insiders discuss how digital technology and the Internet may transform filmmaking.
      A closer look at the business of movies, including the story of how Steven Spielberg's "Jaws" gave birth to the summer blockbuster and changed Hollywood forever.


      The premise is that all the studios and distributors are now controlled by a handful of mega corps who make and market movies based on a formula of risk management. They closely estimate and monitor the opening weekend gross, which is indeed used as the yardstick to extrapolate the total return on the movie including first-run, overseas dist, video sales, merchandise, tv and cable runs, etc.

      Comparing to movies 5-10 years ago _is_ meaningless. Comparing to Harry Potter is very relevant.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    7. Re:This number is meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be much more meaningful to pay attention to how many actual tickets were sold

      Idiotic. If the movie industry suddenly decides to reduce ticket costs, more people will go see movies which will screw the numbers. Gross accounting for inflation is the right thing to consider.

    8. Re:This number is meaningless by Kelerain · · Score: 1
      Well no, its not quite meaningless:
      "Never before in Hollywood history has a movie grossed over $100 million in its first three days, not even when taking ticket price inflation into account."
      from: http://boxofficemojo.com/articles/news/?id=020505b or.htm (the spidey news story on the top of the weeked sales numbers page)

      I do agree that they should acount for inflation in all time lists, but the linked list is mostly recent titles.
    9. Re:This number is meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess, the parent will now whine about *population* inflation.

    10. Re:This number is meaningless by tekunokurato · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if ET weren't released twice, it would be. Unfortunately, you missed the amount of revenue the recent re-release brought in.

      Try again.

      Initial numbers ARE relevant, and that's also why they provide adjusted numbers off to the side on most charts (like the ones linked to in this topic).

      Thanks anyway though!

    11. Re:This number is meaningless by SuperCal · · Score: 1

      I've been told in my Film class here at GSU that if population growth and inflation were taken into account the highest grossing movie of all time would have been "Gone with the Wind". Its still in the top hundred grossing movies, or was until recently

      --
      Business News and Resources: www.usasource.net
    12. Re:This number is meaningless by mooneyd · · Score: 5, Informative
      Here you go

      1 Gone With the Wind: $1,146,081,811

      2 Star Wars: $1,025,027,477

      3 The Sound of Music: $850,020,681

      4 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial: $823,800,033

      5 The Ten Commandments: $760,123,752

      6 Jaws: $743,173,676

      7 Titanic: $725,045,021

    13. Re:This number is meaningless by cperciva · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...people who haven't even paid to see the film, have absolutely no interest in actually watching it, and who are treating the theatre as a convenient spot to gather, chat and (god help us) breed.

      These people are breeding in the theatre?

      Ok, so I haven't been to a movie theatre in a while, but still... I can't believe it has really gotten *that* bad.

    14. Re:This number is meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not when you factor the quantity of movies released then and now. I mean, Gone With The Wind sucks serious ass, but if there aren't 50 available movies and there's a lot of hype, you'll go watch it.

      Now you can watch whatever sort of crap you want.

    15. Re:This number is meaningless by bigfrigginfrogman · · Score: 0

      Potter came out less than a year ago, ticket prices haven't skyrocketed, and their is a profit difference of over 20 million dollars. Lets just agree that Spiderman made an ass load of money, it didn't suck and we'll get a sequel. Is it so hard for us as a people to just except a trivial statistic without trying to dispute it so we can show everyone how clever we are?

    16. Re:This number is meaningless by Rimbo · · Score: 2

      If you compare the population of the USA at the two different times, you get an even more impressive result for E.T. as well.

    17. Re:This number is meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it balance out considering how many people don't go to see the movie because of how costly it is to take their whole family?

    18. Re:This number is meaningless by haystor · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there a baseball strike in the year of E.T.? Or as that a different movie.

      I'd look it up myself, except my utter contempt for baseball prevents me from that.

      Anyhow, whichever year it was that had the strike, I remember it being said that actually altered the numbers on the movies that year.

      --
      t
    19. Re:This number is meaningless by bskin · · Score: 2

      If you read the articles, they talked about ticket sales as well. It also compared to older films on adjusted grosses.

      --
      hot foreign sheep.
    20. Re:This number is meaningless by mgblst · · Score: 2

      If you compare the IQ of the population of the USA at the two different times, you get an even more impressive result for E.T. as well.

    21. Re:This number is meaningless by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Here you go [boxofficemojo.com]

      So all of those billions of dollars from non-US sources don't count? I'm not from Europe, but I wouldn't mind having a billion Euros.

    22. Re:This number is meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a *three day* record, the figures you have quoted are total takings.

    23. Re:This number is meaningless by mshiltonj · · Score: 2

      The premise is that all the studios and distributors are now controlled by a handful of mega corps who make and market movies based on a formula of risk management.

      You mean these big 10 media companies?

  23. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong - we're geeks, and we were "breastfed" with spidey & co, while the cool kinds were into things like beverly hills.

    Now, with IT being all the hype, lotr and spiderman, being a geek is mainstream and capitalism feeds off it.

    Is it so wrong for us to enjoy and take pride in the few things that we had to hide in the past?

    (Yes, now geekculture has taylored for roader audience; but I prefer it avaible to nonexistant).

  24. I didn't see it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have not seen "Spider-Man," nor "Harry Potter," nor any other piece of Hollywood dreck in the last three years. I have been boycotting the MPAA due to their stance against "piracy." As a consumer, I feel that it is my right to willfully copy any recordable medium.

    Thank you.

    1. Re:I didn't see it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As a cannibal, I feel it is my right to kill and eat any human being I choose."

      Go ahead and "feel" any way you want. The law doesn't "feel" the same way, so you will go to prison where your pussy ass will get hourly anal poundings from a big black guy named Bubba.

    2. Re:I didn't see it. by Gunsmithy · · Score: 1

      Insulting the MPAA on slashdot does NOT get you instant respect. Now get out of here, what with your Lord of the Rings DVD pre-order slip, you anonymous (and rather hypocritc) coward.

      --
      Kids these days. They don't know the difference between classic, and just plain old.
    3. Re:I didn't see it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want you to know that I am proud of you. While the rest of us are out actually enjoying ourselves, you are sitting at home pretending your better than us.

  25. Of course! by Noobie · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... ,Spider-Man picked up an Amazing $114 million dollars at the box office, ...

    Of course Amazing $114 million dollars! After all, he is called Amazing Spider-Man!

    1. Re:Of course! by Gunsmithy · · Score: 1

      That's SPECTACULAR! Hopefully, the numbers for the Hulk movie will be INCREDIBLE! ...and the DareDevil film will FEARLESSLY take on the competition!

      --
      Kids these days. They don't know the difference between classic, and just plain old.
  26. Hey, I resent that! by Planesdragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Comic Books and a children's book"...

    Are you one of those people who thinks that they have to "grow up" and take things seriously? Public Art, like movies, is at its best when it gets over itself and focuses and making a movie that's both FUN and GOOD. A perfect example of movies needing to "get over themselves" would the TPM, and any "brainy" movie that died at the box office.

    Forget that Spider-Man is a comic book, and forget that you're supposed to put away comic books when you grow up. It's a story about a kid who gets something no one else has, and how he deals with it. It's every bit as "grown up" as a good novel, epic play, or any other bit of nonvisual art that I'd actually pick up outside of a classroom.

    Oh, one more thing: RIAA and the MPAA so far haven't "suppressed" any of my rights, although I do have a dry technical complaint against them.

  27. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny
    • You do realize you're financing the MPAA and RIAA, don't you?

    Now now, less of the hyperbole. I won't have financed the RIAA until I've done my fiduciary duty by buying the soundtrack as well. :p

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  28. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK: i realize this is a troll, and the mention of Jason X was meant to be a quiet heads-up to those who know how to identify slashdot trolls.

    However:

    People tend to like things that make them remember those portions of their childhoods that were harmless.

    Just a thought.

  29. w00t! by tempest303 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Perhaps after Spidey, Harry Potter, and LotR, Hollywood will finally get a fscking clue that a big budget requires a good PLOT and good ACTING to back it up, but that when you can manage all of those, everyone wins...

    That, and it sure can't hurt the odds of better comic book based movies being made in the future. :)

    1. Re:w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, I think anyone who saw the movie will agree with me that along with 50% cheesy plot lines, the acting was questionable!
      With a few exceptions, the actors had little to do to improve the quality (or lack there of ) of this flick.
      Sure, sure... the SFX was great and there was a lotta good action , and they did a good job on developing Spiderman's character.. but that's where the goodness stops. Trying to over-romanticize the movie by involving the token dumb/beautiful girl!!!
      It was almost enough to make me want my money
      back.. but then again, I should have half-expected it!

    2. Re:w00t! by jackal! · · Score: 2
      Perhaps after Spidey, Harry Potter, and LotR, Hollywood will finally get a fscking clue that a big budget requires a good PLOT and good ACTING to back it up, but that when you can manage all of those, everyone wins...

      Why? All these movie are also effects-laiden. What makes you think they won't just say, "See, we TOLD YOU the people just want to see effects films!"

      --

      Who moderates the meta-moderators?

    3. Re:w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they should have used a stuntman for the webslinging over the city scenes in spider-man. That would have been so much cooler.

    4. Re:w00t! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Perhaps after Spidey, Harry Potter, and LotR, Hollywood will finally get a fscking clue that a big budget requires a good PLOT

      LotR didn't have a good plot. Just the same mini-plot three times over. The gang goes to some new place, must get through some obstacle, then must fight some enemy hand-to-hand, one of the gang dies, and the rest of the gang moves on to the next sub-plot cycle. Yawn, wake me when it's over.

    5. Re:w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool until he plummeted screaming to his death, splattering extras and crew with his innards.

  30. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're geeks who grew up with Spider-Man comic books and Sam Raimi movies. Of course this is a valid Slashdot topic...

    BC

  31. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by none2222 · · Score: 1

    You're saying Jason X has more value than spider-man?

    Have you actually watched Jason X? It is a wonderful little film, directed by talented new director James Isaac. It brilliantly deconstructs horror conventions, while reaffirming our faith in human nature. Don't judge it by the earlier installments in the series.

    Have you ever read spider-man comics? Do you even read comics?

    Of course not. I'm not a kiddy.

    Spider-man was always the most human of heroes despite his powers.

    Super hero comics are for the emotionally retarded and psychologically off-balance.

    --
    If you have a problem with my views, REPLY, don't moderate!
  32. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by ghostlibrary · · Score: 2


    >Now they have 114 million more dollars to suppress your rights.

    Not really-- remember, no movie ever has made a profit, so we're safe That's why the studios are so endangered-- they can't even make a (paper) profit! Poor Hollywood, so poor, so poor.

    And I like your 3rd choice of art movies :)

    --
    A.
  33. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (...)has taylored for a broader audience(...)

    do comment on my statement, not this typo.

    Thanks.

  34. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by IncohereD · · Score: 1

    Jason X represents all that is good in the art? I agree that horror has it's place in the art, but Jason X is hardly Night of the Living Dead. It's just as much 'studio trash' as Spiderman.

    As for falling for the hype, did you even see the movie? Or is the hype the basis of your opinion? I thought the casting and effects were questionable until I saw the movie, and it all worked. I even got a look at the PS2 game, which was horrid. But Sam Raimi's art rose above. Maybe I should have sneaked in to screw the MPAA, but I'd rather help influence them to pick good directors and films, by voting with my money. You can't change an organizations policy by boycotting them, but you can by rewarding them when they do something right. Pavolv and such.

    As for 'triumphant, original films', I saw Amelie at my local independent theatre the other day, before you question my 'cred'. But art is not limited to obscurity, some artists DO actually end up making money one day. Stop vilifying your heroes for their success.

  35. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Osty · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, triumphant original films that remind us of what all that is good in the art (Frailty, Baran, Jason X) are all but ignored.

    Sorry, but you lose. Jason X was anything but an original film. It was campy, it was fun in a cheesy sort of way, but it was not really original, and it was not very good. As for the other two, you may be right. More likely, though, you're a pretentious movie snob that hates everything Hollywood because it's cool to do so, even when there's actually a good Hollywood movie.


    The only reason any of you went to see this movie is because you heard you were supposed to. Despite the awful casting and poor special effects, you had to feed your disposable income to the corporate beast.

    I don't know about you, but I went to see it because I think the Spider-Man story is a very good story. I thought the casting was spot-on, the acting was terrific, and the effects were great (yes, a couple effects scenes came off as cheesy, but within the context of the movie, they worked well).


    I think I've just been trolled.

  36. Character! by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 2

    Okay, someone missed the point.

    Spiderman's strength comes not just from his mad wack superpowers, but from his strength of character. "With great power comes great responsibility." That he chooses to use his powers for good and not evil is a display of his character.

    The superpowers are just a vehicle for telling the story about the man. Any great fantasy or sci-fi is really about people.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  37. Re:Didn't we read this on cnn.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, we don't read cnn.com because it's the most narrow-minded news gateway one can find.

  38. SHUT UP SATAN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yu0 is the most of wr0ng!!! Spydrman was VARY excellentest of casting! Willem Dafoe did a magnifisnt job and Tovey Makwire hit the exact rightest of note ballins batween nerdyness and herioszm. DiD Yu0 EVEN SEE the mooviE??/?

    Y0r idea od the best of cinemma is STUIPD! Jasom ex is jurt a exploitation SLASHER FLICK! Adn as for BARAM, it is teribble!!! That film is w0efully miscasst!!1 Hossein Abedini is ALL WRONG for the role!!, And I can't beleive no-talents like Zahra Bahrami and Gholam Ali Bakhshi are even W0rking!! You are the stuped! IF i ever meet you I will SMASH YOU!

  39. No, it's advertising by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

    It's perfectly legal to convince everyone in the world that your "x" is THE "x", and thus have everyone purchase/see/read your "x."

    What's illegal is if you make it impossible for anyone else to get THEIR "x" to the masses. Specifically, if you're the biggest maker of "x", and you beat out all the other makers of "x" based on your sheer size rather than the quality of your "x." This is what's called a monopoly, and it's a Bad Thing.

    Advertising--that is, increasing the perceptive value of your "x"--is not a Bad Thing. A Dishonest Thing, maybe, but not a Bad Thing.

  40. A Simple Plan. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 2

    What, he didn't prove that he was a serious director with A Simple Plan? It was a critically acclaimed, gripping drama about the banality of evil, the polar opposite of Army of Darkness, yet just as high-quality.

    And now he's showing that his range extends even further. Ah, our man Sam---is there anything he can't do?

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  41. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by NoDiggity · · Score: 1

    I don't know if I would call Jason X original.. it really seemed like too much of a cross between Alien, Terminater, and 9 other Friday the 13th movies.

  42. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Ko5mo · · Score: 1

    You are right, I am a stupid little turd. Now I must not this movie because you told me so, instead I will will now go watch Jason X and learn how to sneak up on people and slash their guts out. No. No. No. No! There is so much crap in your post it is down right comedic! [b]One of the main reasons[/b] this movie (and harry potter) had a big box office was because it drew in the kid audience with its comic book character, and 12yo kids don't go to the movies alone, the whole family goes! This has nothing to do with the hating the MPAA. People will watch wtf they want to watch. Plus it is almost summer, so this movie will probably continue to draw in the crowds looking for action flicks. The American movie going public doesn't give a crap about why you think they should have taken little Timmy to go see Jason X instead of Spider-Man. In fact, you are the pathetic one here. What?!

  43. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by none2222 · · Score: 2


    Jason X represents all that is good in the art? I agree that horror has it's place in the art, but Jason X is hardly Night of the Living Dead. It's just as much 'studio trash' as Spiderman.

    Not at all. If you think that, you're missing the point.

    As for falling for the hype, did you even see the movie?

    Of course not. I know from the fact it is based on a children's comic book that it is unwatchable.

    You can't change an organizations policy by boycotting them,

    You have no idea how wrong you are. Think of Martin Luther King and the Birmingham bus boycott. That paved the way for Civl Rights and Affirmative Action as we know it today.

    As for 'triumphant, original films', I saw Amelie at my local independent theatre the other day, before you question my 'cred'.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sorry, but Amelie is the French equivalent of 'Spiderman'.

    --
    If you have a problem with my views, REPLY, don't moderate!
  44. Nice movie, except for.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I enjoyed the movie, except for the obvious post-9/11 edits. I'm sure they seemed appropriate when they were added just days after the attacks (the New Yorkers' "you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us" line, the badly digitally inserted U.S. flag in the final scene), but they stick out like a sore thumb almost a year later.

    Who can forget the multi-millionaire Hollywood stars begging for attention just days after the terrorist attacks, all too eager to remind the rest of the world that they're better and more important than the lowly common folk and the situation at hand.

    Or how every movie in production at the time was trying to figure out "how to best address the attacks" (Translation: how to best market it to the public).

    You had the P.C. goons at the studios rushing to erase the Trade Center from their movies, past and present. ("Oh no! The sight of the buildings actually standing might offend or upset someone!")

    You also had script monkeys trying to shoehorn patriotism into situations where it was not necessarily appropriate. ("Hey, I know! Let's put a bigass flag behind him!")

    What's the message they're trying to get across? Spiderman standing next to the U.S. flag? Do they mean to say that we as Americans should applaud our fake heroes as "Real American Heroes" instead of our real ones?

    Hollywood is trying to show that it's still important in this day and age. It clearly is not. Let fantasy be fantasy, and reality be reality. For God's sake, life is short. Let's get on with it.

    Thank you.

    1. Re:Nice movie, except for.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the New Yorkers' "you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us" line, the badly digitally inserted U.S. flag in the final scene


      Blech! Good thing I wasn't going to see it anyway...
    2. Re:Nice movie, except for.. by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 2

      I think you must have forgotten to log in or something, because that was a pretty damn insightful AC post...

      graspee

    3. Re:Nice movie, except for.. by bc90021 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And I thought *I* was cycnical...

      First, are you a New Yorker? If you're not, you don't quite know just what it was like to be on the island that day. If you do, I am surprised at how bitter you are.

      Second, if you have a problem with the "post 9/11 edits", you're missing a big point. In order to accurately portray NYC now, you can't have the buildings there. It is quite unfortunate (I lost two friends, I know), but it is still true. Besides, the world got enough coverage of the gruesome happening on the news - we can cherish the memories of friends and loved ones we lost, but we don't need to be reminded every five seconds like we were on the news for two months.

      Third, while you seem to have this negative image of all "Hollywood" people, I stood on line to give blood that day behind some of New York's finest actors and actresses, standing in line to help just like every one else. They weren't asking for attention, just to help.

      Fourth, what is wrong with patriotism? You have a problem with it because people have re-realised what it means to be patriotic? Where were you two years ago crying about a lack of patriotism in this country?

      Fifth, no one is suggesting that we applaud fake heroes. In case you missed it, there were plenty of New York's Finest, and New York's Bravest, in the movie. And that 'you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us' was always true; the rest of the country didn't know it as well as we NYers, but hey, behind that gruff exterior lies a heart of generosity. It always has.

    4. Re:Nice movie, except for.. by marcop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ("Oh no! The sight of the buildings actually standing might offend or upset someone!")

      Negative association. During a scene featuring the WT towers, instead of people thinking about the story or cool effects/CGI people might have flashbacks of 9/11. IANAHP (Hollywood producer) but I wouldn't want people thinking those things during my movies unless the movie was about 9/11. This issue will probably change with more time.

    5. Re:Nice movie, except for.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's too bad we have to read your post instead of a hollywood actor recite it over some chessy "this is a big speech" music in front of a big waving flag.

      I'm not saying patriotism is bad or anything but one has to take it with a grain of salt. Too strong a feeling about anything leaves a chance for someone to exploit it (like hollywood).

    6. Re:Nice movie, except for.. by kindbud · · Score: 2

      First, are you a New Yorker? If you're not, you don't quite know just what it was like to be on the island that day.

      Just because the same accident of proximity did not befall the other guy, does not mean his opinion about what happened there and elsewhere in that day is "less worthy" than yours. "Being there" didn't give you a trump card. But this is hardly surprising, since New Yorkers had the same attitude about "being in New York" before 9/11. I think there's enough distance now to stop overlooking that little conceit, and call them on it just like we always have.

      And I thought *I* was cycnical...

      You ain't seen nothin' yet.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    7. Re:Nice movie, except for.. by bc90021 · · Score: 1

      Ooh, ya got me on that one... I never said his opinion was less valid, just that one person's experiences can lead to different conclusions. Furthermore, there was an "And if you're not..." clause to that that you ignored.

      And New Yorkers are conceited because they have reason to be. You can keep "calling us" on it, but that will never change. It's not the Greatest City on Earth (TM) for no reason you know. ;)

    8. Re:Nice movie, except for.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get a grip

    9. Re:Nice movie, except for.. by sheldon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmm. I think you are reading way too much into the movie than was intended. From the tone of your post, I'd have to say Hollywood was right... there are some people hyper-sensitive to 9/11.

      The discussion of New York, patriotism, whatever... was far more subtle than in other past comic superhero movies.(i.e. think Superman) Raimi did a nice balance and I saw nothing in there which shouted post 9/11.

    10. Re:Nice movie, except for.. by Saeger · · Score: 1
      I stood on line to give blood that day behind some of New York's finest actors and actresses, standing in line to help just like every one else.

      Reminds me of a scene in that stop-motion skit that was on Saturday Night Live last night, which went something like: "You need to give blood more they we need you to give it."

      True.

      I'm a New Yorker and am JUST as cynical as the original poster. Sure, ~3K good people died, and we lost an important phallic symbol, and people were jarred from their safe routine, etc., etc., but people lost all sense of proportion just because of the population/financial/political/news density of NYC. If the same hollywood-scale disaster had happened to just about any other city, it wouldn't have got the knee-jerk that it did. *shrug* .. that's a fact.

      In fact, I view the exploitation of fear and patriotism as WORSE than the "exploitation" of women.

      Anyway, comformist partyline time... rah-rah-rah-rah! Gimme a 1! Gimme a 2! Gimme a 3! Gimme a N-Y-C!

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    11. Re:Nice movie, except for.. by demon · · Score: 1

      Re: Patriotism...

      "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
      -- Samuel Johnson, inventor of the dictionary

      "The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice - and always has been."
      -- Mark Twain

      Sad but true - an awful lot of flag-waving is done to cover up other things, like the fact that you're in it for the money, not because of any belief in anything.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    12. Re:Nice movie, except for.. by Jubedgy · · Score: 1

      Nah, I gotta say that if it happened in LA, there might've been a bigger hullabaloo...after all, look what a little thing like OJ Simpson running from the cops caused oO Imagine if that circly triangly building thing (you know...the building in independance day where the people are having the 'welcome' party right before the attack) downtown got hit instead? Sure it's no WTC, but IMHO Los Angeles is as much a symbol of the US as NY, albeit in a different way (heck, personally I don't recognize any east coast skyline, but take a minor building out of the LA one and I'll be pissed).

      Eh anyway, small chance us angelenos'll be saved by spiderman in any forthcoming movies though, looks like we'll have to wait for earthquakes to kill our supervillains (or some riots, HAH!)

      --Jubedgy

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
    13. Re:Nice movie, except for.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree.

      In fact, I didn't think about the subject of 9/11 until the AC poster made his cynical remarks about those two scenes in particular.

      Maybe if the story had taken place in a city other than NYC, we wouldn't even be having this thread?

    14. Re:Nice movie, except for.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      er .. Did the people say something different to the goblin before? or did they just throw rocks at him without saying anything, cause that would look sorta dumb?.

    15. Re:Nice movie, except for.. by Saeger · · Score: 1
      If it happened in LA, could ya imagine the traffic caused by everyone trying to get to the bloodbanks to 'do their part'? It'd be a carbon monoxide massacre! badabing... :)

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    16. Re:Nice movie, except for.. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

      I think people forget that the trailer that featured the World Trade Center towers was never intended to be in the final movie. Very effective teaser trailer up till 9/11, though.

    17. Re:Nice movie, except for.. by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 2

      Do they mean to say that we as Americans should applaud our fake heroes as "Real American Heroes" instead of our real ones?

      Why not? The imagined heroes are the ideal, the symbols. The real heroes are the reality, the ones you can count on. Both are important.

      I'm not a New Yorker, I didn't even notice the WTC was supposed to be anywhere in the film, and I thought the crowd scene on the bridge was pretty cool.

      My main complaints about the film was hokey dialog and that Kirsten Dunst looked like a 30-something crack whore. I didn't even notice the jingoism to which you're referring.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    18. Re:Nice movie, except for.. by JJ22 · · Score: 1

      This is an interesting point, *EXCEPT* that...

      one of the major themes througout the comic *WAS* the love/hate relationship that he had with New Yorkers (I haven't read the comic in years, this was back in the late 80s). They did try to put some of that into the movie, but in two hours it is hard to get across. I could see the scene with the New Yorkers throwing bricks at the Goblin if the movie was made 10 yrs ago, or 10 yrs later. The scene at the end with the flag was seemed to be noticeably pushing the patriotism issue, but what are you gonna do?

  45. Um... by sean-mccorkle · · Score: 2


    Umm... I just saw the film last night. Spiderman (Peter Parker) DOESN'T get the girl. Its a TRAGIC ending. In fact, thats what makes this film (and
    the Marvel comic series) so interesting - the characters are in many ways realistic (often they're outright dysfunctional).

    1. Re:Um... by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 2

      Way to lone-gunmen-are-dead us, dude.

      graspee

    2. Re:Um... by spezz · · Score: 1
      See, now i'm unsure whether the proper usage is that *we've* been lone-gunmen-are-deaded or whether the *post* itself was lone-gunmen-are-deaded, insomuch that we can use the past tense in our verbed nouns. Taco was a little unclear when he was making up his crazyass grammar this week.

    3. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      thanks for the spoiler warning, asshole.

      i wish i had the mod points to dump you into the unseen void of -1.

    4. Re:Um... by mshiltonj · · Score: 2


      Spiderman (Peter Parker) DOESN'T get the girl. Its a TRAGIC ending. In fact, thats what makes this film


      Thanks for the fucking spoiler.

  46. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Xaoswolf · · Score: 1

    Actually, I would say that Jason X was a much better movie than Spider-man. Why do I say this, well for one thing, I never much liked spider-man, I liked Ghost Rider, Punisher, and Venom(but I never read the comics where he fought Spider-Man). I also feel that the Punisher movie from way back when was much better than Spider-Man. Why, you may ask, well, for one thing, they didn't feel the need to CG everything the Punisher did. I was increadibly disgusted by the amount of CG in spider-man, I mean was it really nesscessary to CG him when he is just hanging motionless under a ledge. Was it really nesscessary to CG him pulling on his mask before he walked off camera. The whole movie had the effect of looking into the lifeless eye's of one of the Final Fantasy movie's characters.

  47. Anyone see For the Love of the Game? by Macrobat · · Score: 2

    Veering OT here, but has anyone seen For the Love of the Game? I've been wanting to rent that because it's Raimi (and based on a book by Michael Shaara--or is it Jeff?), but the fact that it's a Kevin Costner baseball movie's turned me off so far. Anyone know what it's like?

    --
    "Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
    1. Re:Anyone see For the Love of the Game? by hicktruckdriver · · Score: 1

      It was a pretty good flick; but I think baseball movies with Kevin Costner just happen to work, proof that two wrongs do make a right.

      The Costner character is pretty much a washed-up pitcher who somehow, happens to be pitching a no-hit game, and he's reflecting on things in his life. It's a good date movie, and not a bad watch by any means. At the same time, it's not the greatest sports movie ever made. (Unlike "Hoosiers".)

      --
      darius
    2. Re:Anyone see For the Love of the Game? by elfkicker · · Score: 1

      Very very bad.

      I actually enjoy most baseball movies, and I'd say Costner was actually pretty good once, but that movie sucked. Annoying timeshifting, trite subject matter, and completely pretentious.

      On the good side though, it'll cure your insomnia.

    3. Re:Anyone see For the Love of the Game? by Golias · · Score: 2
      I stayed away from "For the Love of the Game" for the same reason... I was tired of Costner playing the aging jock, especially when I had recently been forced by friends to sit through him doing just that it in "Tin Cup."

      But one day some friends of mine rented it, and I watched it along with them. It was a damn good movie. The stories of his relationsip with his wife, his driven nature, his friendship with his catcher, and the coach that he had for his whole career, was all done well.

      It was also cool that the game was a meaningless contest by a team that was wrapping up a losing season.

      It was also, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many film critics and base-ball fans, some of the best-filmes baseball action sequences ever. It really brings home the elements of baseball as "a game of yards and inches".

      See it when you get the chance.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    4. Re:Anyone see For the Love of the Game? by flink · · Score: 1

      No way. The best sports movie ever made is, of course, "Slapshot".

    5. Re:Anyone see For the Love of the Game? by Wiener · · Score: 1
      >>>&gtAt the same time, it's not the greatest sports movie ever made. (Unlike "Hoosiers".)

      >&gtNo way. The best sports movie ever made is, of course, "Slapshot".

      Wrong again, the best sports movie ever made is Days of Thunder ;)

  48. Hype gage by rabidphilosophy · · Score: 1

    I always like to think that opening weekends simply gage the amount of hype a movie has, and not if it is any good. The Lost World is a perfect example, It did amazing on the first weekend, but will it be remembered as a great? I don't think so. We will really be able to judge a film on if it can last. From a studio's point of view, Hype and promotion can often be much more impotent then the film itself.
    That's enough of pointing out the obvious for one post.

    --
    God sucks at running this place. Impeach God at
    1. Re:Hype gage by Boulder+Geek · · Score: 2
      PR people consider that they've done their job if a movie opens big and then disappears the next weekend. This chart illustrates a good hype job. This one illustrates good word-of-mouth combined with poor studio support.

      --
      A well-crafted lie appears unquestionable - Dama Mahaleo
    2. Re:Hype gage by Foggy+Tristan · · Score: 1

      The opening weekened phenomenon was a big issue last year, with almost every summer release premiering to big numbers and disappearing quickly.

      One of the things to check for, in terms of "is it a good movie or not", is the drop off...the percentage difference between week 1 and week 2. 30-40% dropoff is about average, while a 50-60% is pretty nasty. A 10-20% dropoff is pretty good, while an uptick is usually on seen with Oscar-nominated movies.

      --
      Beware typoes.
    3. Re:Hype gage by KirkH · · Score: 1

      Close, but a 10-20% dropoff is considered excellent! A dropoff of less than 10% is unheard of, not withstanding recent Oscar nominations or wins or holidays.

      A 20-30% dropoff is very good, 35-45% is average, and 50% is expected for big hype machines. Anything more than 50% is poor.

      The only film that has ever surprised me with it's dropoff was the Sixth Sense. It got such good word-of-mouth that it only dropped 2% from week one to two!

  49. Isnt it funny by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How western culture has made people proud of giving their money.

    I mean you can like a movie and pay for it, and there is nothing wrong with that, but to say this movie rules because we payed so many millions of dollars into it is just sad.

    And then of course you have to race so many people will try very hard to make attack of the clones gross higher than spiderman and lor.

    If the studios brainwashed the american public they couldnt have done a better job.

    1. Re:Isnt it funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I mean you can like a movie and pay for it, and there is nothing wrong with that, but to say this movie rules because we payed so many millions of dollars into it is just sad.
      1. The money is a more or less accurate measurement of the number of people who went to see that movie that first weekend. Because the statistics are gathered for the purposes of accounting more than for the interest of journalists, we are given money figures to work with rather than exact headcount figures. However, because movie tickets are about all equal cost , we can gather that if Spider-Man made about 26% more money than Harry Potter the first weekend, then about 26% more people watched the movie that first weekend (counting rewatches). This seems to me like an altogether reasonable rubric of measuring success. Either way, we are happy when a movie that we liked made a lot of money, because it means that a large number of people were *probably* in agreement with us as to whether or not it was a good movie. (Hype is also a factor, of course, but people don't always think of this, and anyway Hype doesn't usually lead people to watch a movie twice in one weekend.) It's a good feeling to think that lots of people think the same way you do.
      2. Movies cost a lot of money to make; movie companies that get a lot of money stay in business longer and are able to make more movies. Directors who make movies that make lots of money for their studios find it easier to make movies later, because the studio trusts them more. Therefore, we are happy when a movie we liked makes a lot of money, because it means that the studio that went to all that bother to make the movie is recieving some kind of compensation for their trouble, and also that the director is being rewarded for a job well done.
      3. You cannot put a number on happiness. You cannot look at a movie and statistically or objectively judge "how much did people like this movie?" with any degree of accuracy. Therefore in order to judge "how well" a movie did, we have to use less accurate methods of measurement, such as how much money it made (which sort of works, sometimes, for the reasons listed above.
    2. Re:Isnt it funny by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

      The ammount of bussiness a movie does on its first weekend is not a very accurate way to measure how much people liked it.

      I am sure people liked spiderman but the fact that it made so much on the first weekend has more to do with the way it was released and marketed as with the quality of the movie.

    3. Re:Isnt it funny by jcast · · Score: 1

      You want we should hoard our money?

      --
      There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
      -- David D. Friedman
    4. Re:Isnt it funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ammount of bussiness a movie does on its first weekend is not a very accurate way to measure how much people liked it.

      Correct. But it is still interesting.

    5. Re:Isnt it funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Economies only work because people exchange their money for goods and services. Otherwise it would be worthless and you'd be too busy whining to keep yourself from starving.

    6. Re:Isnt it funny by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

      You did not read or understand my meassage and yet still find it neccessary to tech me about the economy.

    7. Re:Isnt it funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much money it makes is proportional to how many people went to see it, which is proportional to how good it is.

      It's just a metric of how good the movie is, we don't worship somebody else's proffit if that's what you mean. You must have a warped view of the U.S.A.

      P.S. your country sucks.

    8. Re:Isnt it funny by mgblst · · Score: 2

      You are completely wrong. It IS so cool that so many people like the same stupid shit that I like. It almost makes me feel loved!

  50. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 1

    Jason X was one of the worst movies i have ever seen! It should have ended earlier than it did, I am all for the horror movie resserection but the movie was BS, it was a complete waste of money to go to.

    --
    If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
  51. All they had to do was let Stan Lee have his way. by blair1q · · Score: 2

    Two decades of Hollywood horseshit is being buried under righteous indignation.

    Go Stan.

    --Blair
    "'Nuff sed."

  52. Do they ever adjust for inflation? by Macrobat · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm always skeptical about numbers like that. Do they adjust for inflation? The fact that a movie makes, say $80 million with an average ticket price of eight dollars means that exactly the same number of people saw something that made $50 million back in the days of $5 tickets. But I've never seen the numbers adjusted to account for that.

    For that matter, I've never seen them adjusted for population growth or the general economic climate. Star Wars came out when there were 200 million people in the U.S.; now there's something like 270 million plus. That's gotta make a difference, as does a movie's showing during boom times versus a recession.

    --
    "Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
    1. Re:Do they ever adjust for inflation? by xcomputer_man · · Score: 5, Informative

      They did think of that, there is a page on the site that contains an inflation-adjusted list of All Time Domestic grosses. Not surprisingly, Gone With The Wind tops the list with $1.1 billion dollars, followed closely by the 1977 release of Star Wars.

      The full list is here.

      Very, very interesting site.

    2. Re:Do they ever adjust for inflation? by div_2n · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree it would be nice to have them factor in those variables, but there is so much to consider that a complex formula would be required.

      I think there should be at least three measures that show a movie's performance. 1) Percentage profit a movie makes 2) Tickets sold compared to population given as a percentage 3) Average percentage of seats filled at theaters.

      Measure 1 would show how profitable a movie is. An indication as to its success relative to the financers.

      Measure 2 would not represent really how many people actually saw it (some see it multiple times) but it would give at least a quasi-accurate indication over time of how one movie compares to another.

      Measure 3 would potentially measure a movie's ability to draw the crowds.

      There are ways these could be manipulated to give even more accurate indications. I do agree that raw sales figures are flawed.

    3. Re:Do they ever adjust for inflation? by DumbSwede · · Score: 1
      Great list!

      There is something that strikes me about it though...

      40 of the top Fifty are pure fantasy-escapism
      (I'm including historical settings as escapism).
      Of the remaining 10, about 4 are Action flicks, and 2 are comedies.
      Of the 50 only "The Exorcist" qualifies as horror.

      So why is Hollywood so obsessed with churning out Action flicks, Comedies and Horror??? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy good examples of any of these three genre.
      I can only guess, that the kind of escapism in films I guess most /. like myself crave, are not only great when they succeed, but spectacular failures when they don't.

    4. Re:Do they ever adjust for inflation? by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1
      So why is Hollywood so obsessed with churning out Action flicks, Comedies and Horror???


      Because they're more reliable. There are some action movies and comedies that the studio knows are almost guaranteed to turn a profit, even if they have no chance of being one of the most profitable movies of all time. Would you turn down guaranteed money?
      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    5. Re:Do they ever adjust for inflation? by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1

      I think it would be easier if we used tickets sold as our primary measure of a movie's success rather than money, inflation-adjusted or otherwise. After all, albums go gold based on how many units they sell, and people are much more likely to talk about what the best-selling album of all time is, rather than the most profitable. Similarly, when we talk about a TV show's ratings, we discuss how many people watched it, not how much it pulled in in advertising revenue. Why are movies different?

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    6. Re:Do they ever adjust for inflation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen how many old Disney movies are on that list. No wonder they're such copyright nazis.

      --Greg

    7. Re:Do they ever adjust for inflation? by NeMon'ess · · Score: 2

      Would someone please explain what the hell is up with 11th place: Ben Hur?!? The movie was released in 1959 and took in $70,000,000 unadjusted, or $609,000,000 adjusted. Meanwhile in 12th place: 101 Dalmations, released in 1961 and grossed $152,000,000 unadjusted, but $595,000,000 adjusted. How the hell does this work? From 1959 to 1961 the price of a movie ticket did not double, did it?!?

    8. Re:Do they ever adjust for inflation? by Babbster · · Score: 1
      Why not? We were in a relative boom time for a long time there. Besides, if the price went from $1/ticket to $2/ticket (or something similar), of course the gross would double. Believe me, Hollywood would double up on us now ($16-20 per tickeny, anyone?) if they thought they could get away with it.

      -Aaron

    9. Re:Do they ever adjust for inflation? by packeteer · · Score: 1

      do they adjust for piracy... i mean according to the MPAA they lose $143,543,145,695,234,434 or something on piracy so i wonder if thats how they get these numbers...

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    10. Re:Do they ever adjust for inflation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as a matter of fact, in France, movies are rated not on the amount of money they gather (which as your brilliantly pointed out varies along with the inflation and the price of the ticket) but with the number of entries, that is, the number of tickets sold.

      Now that's much easier to see what movie has the highest rank.

      Artaxerxes

  53. Bad MPAA = Ok to give money to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF? If the MPAA is bad, don't give money to them. The whole mess is unconstitutional but you don't help anything buy giving those bastards money.

    Sell out for spiderman? I'd hate so see what you guys would do for sex.

  54. Tickets, not dollars... by xonker · · Score: 1

    I'd rather see information on how many tickets were sold than how many dollars a film grosses.

    Sure, the studio cares about the money - but ticket sales aren't a good benchmark of how many people went to see Spider-Man vs how many people went to see ET or even The Phantom Menace. The ticket prices have gone up drastically since ET was released, and slightly since TPM (and possibly even Harry Potter). That being the case, the dollar figure doesn't allow a fair comparison between movies. Maybe movies that open the same weekend, but not movies that open years apart.

    Also, I doubt that AoTC will be a three-day opener. Don't the Star Wars films always open on Wednesday? So, comparing those films opening gross will be apples to oranges as well...

    1. Re:Tickets, not dollars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there are more people and more theaters in the US and the world EVERY YEAR! Which means: more people at the movies. Ticket numbers are inaccurate too. Maybe not as much as dollar figures, but it's certainly not an entirely accurate representation of how well a movie performed.

      startewvzaen

    2. Re:Tickets, not dollars... by xonker · · Score: 1

      You have a point, but at least we'd know approximately how many people went to see a movie instead of the dollar figure. My point is that it's entirely likely that more people actually turned out to see The Empire Strikes Back than Spider-Man, but ticket prices were way cheaper when Empire was in theatres.

    3. Re:Tickets, not dollars... by CeZa · · Score: 0

      maybe we could judge a movie on how good it is rather than how many people go see it... "only to two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and i am not sure about the former"

  55. Not surprising because ... by Hank+Kingsley · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Everybody has been waiting twenty years for this movie. And when word got out that the filmmakers got it right, everybody had to see it.

  56. Estimates by jimmcq · · Score: 2

    In case its not totally obvious, those numbers are estimates... The actual numbers won't come until Monday at the earliest.

    1. Re:Estimates by jimmcq · · Score: 2

      The final number is $114,844,116

      Not too far off from the estimates... but I just don't like how all those articles kept talking about $144M in the past tense when the weekend wasn't even over yet.

  57. Buy Marvel stock!! by Cap'n+Crax · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I own a fair amount of stock in Marvel (MVL) and it has made me a good deal of money, with likely lots more to come. Many more films are in the works, including Daredevil, Iron Man, The Hulk, X-Men II, Spider-Man II, etc... I recommend anyone into investing to take a look at it. Also, it has one of the most lively and interesting Yahoo! Message Boards of any stock that I know of.

    Yeah, this is a shameless plug, but the stock really has had a great run, and I believe it has the potential to go much, much higher!! Do you own due diligence, etc...

    --
    PK: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    1. Re:Buy Marvel stock!! by susano_otter · · Score: 2
      And yet the Marvel's business plan for years now has been to dump continuity and serious storytelling in favor of hyperrealistic titties and recycled plots, all geared towards each year's new crop of teenagers. Miller, Mazzuchelli, Byrne, Sienkewicz (to name a few) have all moved on long since to other publishers and titles. Marvel's mainstream lines have become the boy bands of the comics industry. Remember the 80s? John Byrne's Alpha Flight? Miller and Mazzucelli on Wolverine? Miller's Daredevil?

      I'm happy that people are making money off the Marvel properties, but it's a crying shame that stockholders like profits more that quality.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  58. It's because of marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By using unadjusted dollars, the studios are assuring a high turnover rate for the #1 spot, so they can hype it in advertising. "New movie shatters box office records" will draw in a lot more customers than "Gone with the Wind still #1."

  59. Fsck Spider-Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wanna see a movie about my super-heros.

  60. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 2

    " it really seemed like too much of a cross between Alien, Terminater, and 9 other Friday the 13th movies."

    Whoah! Sounds awesome!

    graspee

  61. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by seanw · · Score: 2

    you are *almost* (but not quite) kind of funny, in a trollish sort of way

  62. Not quite excellent by fireboy1919 · · Score: 2

    Well...not all the Spiderman fans are perfectly happy.
    Saying, "I wrote a paper in Nano-technology" does not really do much to show Parker to be a technological genius, not nearly as much as inventing web shooters (they were organic in the movie as we all know), and Pete didn't love MJ since they where little...she wasn't even his first girlfriend.

    Still, JJJ was perfect, and there were some great scenes and quotes in there like "your friendly neighborhood spiderman" and "with great power comes great responsibility," and there was some real attention to detail to make some of the shots reminescent of the comics, such as when Spidey hung upside down, and where he would go to think (on top of a gargoyle on a particular building).

    Its better than anything else like it, but not at all the same spirit. In the movie (and trailer) aunt May said, "You do too much. You're not Superman, you know." If all he's got going for him is his super powers, then isn't that exactly what he is, just another superman?

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    1. Re:Not quite excellent by Urchlay · · Score: 1

      > In the movie (and trailer) aunt May said, "You do too much. You're
      > not Superman, you know." If all he's got going for him is his super
      > powers, then isn't that exactly what he is, just another superman?

      Unlike Superman though, he could be wounded, or even killed. Nobody really sympathesizes with a truly invincible hero... which is why there's so much Kryptonite around, in the Superman universe.

      I agree though, that this movie downplayed the `technological genius' side of Peter Parker's character... but then, from what I remember of the comic book (and it's been a long time), Peter didn't act like a genius all the time. He was human, he made mistakes.. he was just a regular guy who happened to get super powers by accident, and wasn't all that happy about it. That part of his character came out pretty well in this Hollywood-ized version of the story.

    2. Re:Not quite excellent by Golias · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Oh, gawd... LET IT GO ALREADY!!!

      The web shooters were always the one weak element of Spider-Man lore. The very idea that a tube of fluid small enough to not be seen under skin-tight spandex sleves could possibly produced even a single ten-story strand of webbing strong enough to hold a person's weight is preposterous. And Paker was shown as a science genious, in that he pretty much had his choice of colleges, his friend implies that he consistantly dominated the science fair circuit while growing up, got into a leading technology company right out of high school (remember him talking about getting fired for his chronic truancy?), and yes, writing papers about Osborn's work does establish him as a genius, because Osborn himself is stunned to learn that a HS student has even managed to read his stuff.

      John Romita Sr. (pehaps the writer most involved in creating Spider-Man lore, after Stan Lee himself), personally came around to admiring the organic webbing as "clever", and didn't consider the change that big of a deal upon reflection.

      MJ has been the main love interest of Spidey in the comics for over a quarter of a century. Did you really expect the first film to trot out the Gwen Stacey story, when she has not been a living character in the comics since 1973?

      If all he's got going for him is his super powers, then isn't that exactly what he is, just another superman?

      No.

      What defines Parker is not that he is Nobel-prise-worthy smart (which he would have to have been to invent that webbing), but his social alienation as a brainy geek. The film captured that perfectly.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    3. Re:Not quite excellent by Golias · · Score: 1

      Damn, my spelling on that post was so bad, I could be a /. editor! I should really start using spellcheck on this stuff.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  63. Here's a link... by simetra · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    To some wacky christian review of Spiderman.
    Crazy.

    http://www.capalert.com/capreports/spiderman.htm

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
    1. Re:Here's a link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fanaticism applies in all angles. Religious fanatics do exist and hopefully those who listen to these people realize that everything can be over analyzed to prove a point. You can't blame the movies for bad parenting. No doubt some parents read this fluff and will stop their teenage kids from seeing the movie, which is fine but they should realize that saying no you can't do that only makes them want to do it more.

    2. Re:Here's a link... by Metrollica · · Score: 0

      From the site:

      Wanton Violence/Crime: graphic close-up of a spider bite

      Please tell me that site and the Spiderman review is a joke.

      --



      --Metrollica
  64. Download Movies by Metrollica · · Score: 0

    I know it's not right to download movies but I can't justify spending $8 on a movie plus another 5 or 6 dollars at the concession stand. So does anyone know where you can download full movies or television shows? Any information well be helpful. Thanks everyone for all your help and God bless!

    --



    --Metrollica
    1. Re:Download Movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you can justify the cable modem and fast computer and big hard drive and kick ass video card and fast CD burner or even DVD burner and the time it takes to do all that instead of going out to see a movie.

      Oh, alrighty then.... And God certainly won't bless your stealing stuff, no matter how hard you try to rationalize it.

      Your seat in Hell has your name on it already.

  65. I did my part to help... by bc90021 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's see... $114 million...

    Cost to see it on opening day: $7.50.
    Cost to see it the next day at a matinee: $5.00.
    Cost to see it today at a matinee: $5.00.
    Cost to see it tomorrow at a matinee: $5.00.
    Cost to see it again tomorrow evening with my girlfriend: $7.50.

    Seeing kick-ass Spider-Man movie five times in four days: PRICELESS. :)

    1. Re:I did my part to help... by Servo · · Score: 1

      Lucky bastard...

      It costs about $9 a ticket per person to see a non matinee movie where I live. (That's in a suburb area in NJ outside NYC) Last time I went to a movie in Manhattan, it ended up costing $11 a ticket.

      --
      A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
    2. Re:I did my part to help... by bc90021 · · Score: 1

      I used to live in NY, in Westchester, so I can commiserate. (I also worked in NYC, so I can commiserate with the $11 as well.) However, having moved to California, movie tickets are cheaper now, so I can see movies multiple times and still pay the rent. ;)

    3. Re:I did my part to help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $7.50 for you and your girlfried? You cheap bastard

    4. Re:I did my part to help... by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 2
      Saw it near Washington DC at an AMC Theatres matinee (while fighting nausea...it's hell to get a refund after you order from www.amctheatres.com so I decided to risk getting sick) at 1 pm for $5.

      And yes, I managed to last the entire film without getting sick :).

    5. Re:I did my part to help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ouch! That stings.

      Oh, wait, you said non-matinee. Silly me.

    6. Re:I did my part to help... by bc90021 · · Score: 1

      Little did you know that she bought me a ticket for my birthday... so I only have hers to pay for. :-P

    7. Re:I did my part to help... by rcharbon · · Score: 1

      You've got a girlfriend?

    8. Re:I did my part to help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Matinee prices in NJ are about what I was paying for non-matinee when I lived down in FL... so yeah, its still a bite. Even with my hefty raise to move north, I'm still wondering if it was a good idea in the short term financially.

  66. but are more people going? by jspectre · · Score: 1

    ticket prices are constantly on the rise. so each new movie that comes out racks up a great weekend. but are more people really going to see each movie?

    --

    abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

    1. Re:but are more people going? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...more midless drivel turned out by Hollywood will surely draw the crowds of kids and young adults who grew up on MTV and Jerry Springer. Very few directors innovate ( exceptions: Memento, Fight Club, Usual Suspects, JFK etc. ).
      I am sure by the end of 2010 we will be on Spiderman 5 or so, before they make it so bad as with the Batman with Arnold S.

  67. You dope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People don't think the movie rules because it made $114 million.

    People payed $114 million because the movie rules.

    You have it back-asswards.

  68. Anger by ahoehn · · Score: 1

    I was fairly surprised when I went to the theatre this afternoon to buy tickets and found the 3:45pm showing of Spider Man sold out three hours early.

    --
    Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
  69. Re:SPOILER ALERT!! SPOILER!! by susano_otter · · Score: 2
    Have you seen it?

    Are you aware that every story ever told is "formulaic"?

    Are you aware that every movie Hollywood ever made is a "money grab"?

    Do you always confuse "design" with "implementation"?

    Do you like to hang around the water cooler saying things like "Don't waste your time with Linux--it's just another POSIX-compliant Open Source OS."?

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  70. Stupid headline comments :( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when does $90 vs $114 mean squashing like a bug? Wow, 25% more, that's amazing. Bah.. Feels like I'm reading spam or Voodoo Extreme. >:(

    Why do people feel the need to make everything a "battle" and every win or lose a giant event that'll revolutionize the world XFL style? I can see that on trashy media, but shouldn't /. nerds be a little more mature?

  71. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by generica1 · · Score: 1

    You're an asshole. Not to be a name caller, but get your elitist know-it-all head out of your ass.

    --
    JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP IRRIGATE
  72. That is completely insane! by I.T.R.A.R.K. · · Score: 0
    "Yes, there is presentation and discussion of evolution in this film. Indeed, some pictorial display of DNA sequences being completed to form a new species is shown. But it's a movie. It is not proof."

    What was the point of THAT remark?!
    Christian people were never very subtle when it came to pushing their own agenda.
    Man, he didn't say a word about a guy dressed like a fucking spider and climbing walls being fictional, but he goes out of his way to refute the theory of evolution? Geesh.

    --

    "Adequacy.org: Where congenital stupidity is not an option, but a requirement."

  73. Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me or is this proof in the pudding that these piracy concerns are unwarented?
    Wasn't the net, improving movie codecs and other technologies suppose to bring an end to movies and music? And if so, why is it that we keep breaking records for CD and Movie ticket sales.....
    Certainly signs of a failing industry due to piracy.... yup.

    just a though.

  74. Remember, bring your video camera by Cardhore · · Score: 1, Troll

    and share your "home" videos!

  75. Has Hollywood Hype Increased? by shoemakc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Looking over the statistics at boxofficemojo.com, i've made an interesting observation.

    To begin, the unadjusted statistics are meaningless. It's like looking at the price of a 1910 hotdog and concluding that the cost of lips and a$$holes has increased.

    Looking over the adjusted all-time records boxofficemojo.com, things look a bit more sensible. I have no doubt that these movies represent the most popular movies of all time (about half are even on the AFI top-100).

    However, if we compare this to the adjusted all-time opening weekened statistics boxofficemojo.com , we see that Not One of the top 100 was more recent then 1989.

    What this indicates to me, is that over the course of the last two decades, hollywood has shifted it's advertising dollar from a constant support of a released movie, to an all-out blitz opening weekends. Why?

    The VCR perhaps?

    -Chris

    --
    --an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
    1. Re:Has Hollywood Hype Increased? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2
      has shifted it's advertising dollar from a constant support of a released movie, to an all-out blitz opening weekends. Why?
      Over saturation of the market. Wasn't that long ago that you looked forward to THE 'summer blockbuster.' Nowadays there's one coming out every two weeks. Therefore, you grabs what you can in the first two weeks, and rely on merchandise and what not to actually pay for the movie, generally.
      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Has Hollywood Hype Increased? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but more importantly...

      Multiplexes became common. There has been a huge increase in the number of screens in the last 15 years.

    3. Re:Has Hollywood Hype Increased? by Ophidian+P.+Jones · · Score: 0

      Looking for a sysadmin in Mississauga/Toronto? [tangozone.com] Contact me!

      Wow, that's been your sig for awhile now. You must be getting hungry....

    4. Re:Has Hollywood Hype Increased? by KirkH · · Score: 1

      Movies used to stay in theaters forever. Are you old enough to remember when Raiders of the Lost Ark opened? It was so huge that it stayed in theaters for nearly a year, if I remember correctly. Nowadays, the biggest blockbusters only hang around for a few months at most, and at ever decreasing theater counts.

      So these days, people are more geared toward thinking that they need to see movies earlier before they leave the theater.

      Also with the way movies are talked about on TV, magazines, and the internet, if you don't see a blockbuster early, you might feel like you're missing out on the discussion or you might have part of it spoiled for you.

    5. Re:Has Hollywood Hype Increased? by Steve+B · · Score: 1
      However, if we compare this to the adjusted all-time opening weekened statistics boxofficemojo.com [boxofficemojo.com] , we see that Not One of the top 100 was more recent then 1989.
      What this indicates to me, is that over the course of the last two decades, hollywood has shifted it's advertising dollar from a constant support of a released movie, to an all-out blitz opening weekends.

      This does not compute -- one of these two statements has got to be wrong.

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  76. Movie piracy is bankrupting the industry! by Sarcasmooo! · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wah! Waaaah! WAAAAHHH!

  77. Hmm...beat it by 24 million by AndyChrist · · Score: 1

    That's enough to more than account for the continual increases in ticket prices...I guess it really DID beat it.

  78. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by MisterBlister · · Score: 1

    Well, considering Sony is a member of both the MPAA and the RIAA (and gee, isn't that Sony recording artist Macy Gray in the movie?), it doesn't matter that much.

  79. Nope, not the only one by ClassicG · · Score: 1

    I've also seen a total of one preview for it (was before Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within for me - the now infamous helicopter-WTC trailer). If it wasn't for my coworkers talking amongst each other about how hard it was to get an advance ticket for the opening show here, I wouldn't have even known it was playing yet.

    --
    I game, therefore I am...
  80. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by IncohereD · · Score: 1

    As for falling for the hype, did you even see the movie?

    Of course not. I know from the fact it is based on a children's comic book that it is unwatchable.


    So a movie is defined by its source material? There's plenty of bad films based on Shakespeare, and plenty of excellent child-themed films (have you SEEN Iron Giant? That was one of the most beautiful films in years, but was mis-marketed to children. I don't know anyone who saw it who didn't love it, from the most sarcastic to the most credulous). And for that matter, plenty of movies with good scripts have been misfilmed, and plenty of bad scripts have turned into decent films. Just a flim on its own merits, not some knee-jerk reaction. You're like the people who wouldn't watch the Simpsons because *gasp* it was a cartoon. Art is available in many media.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sorry, but Amelie is the French equivalent of 'Spiderman'.

    It was just an example, not a defintion of my taste. You're like one of those hopeless indie music fans who disown any album that sells more than 50 000 copies. Yeah, I hate Incubus now, but I still stand by the S.C.I.E.N.C.E. disc. Popularity != sellout. Saying you don't like something just because everyone else does is the same as saying that you do like it because they do...you're still basing your opinion on what the masses think. See the film and make up your own damn mind....or might the 'movie poop shoot' crowd disown you??

    "All you know about me is what I've sold you, dumb fuck/I sold out long before you ever heard my name/I sold my soul to make a record, dipshit/and you bought one" - mjk

  81. Is it just me... by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... or did the visual FX in this movie suck donkey dong? And the trailers for AOTC look really ropey as well.

    This isn't uninformed griping, I used to work with CGI artists in a games company. A typical conversation with a client would go something like this:

    • Client: Can you...
    • Artists: Sure, we just need to double the size of the render farm. You can afford that, right?
    • Client: Uh, I haven't told you what I need yet.
    • Artists: Bah, we can do anything you want, exactly as you want it, and as realistic as you want it. All we need to do is throw enough hardware at it, and buy enough third party lightwave plugins.
    • Client: Uh, OK. Here's a bushel of money.
    • ... time passes ...
    • Client: Deadline time, hand it over.
    • Artists: Uh, the thing is, we were planning on just buying all the models, but they all sucked, so we had to do our own. And then we had some trouble with the animation paths. And there was a bit of an overcommitment on the render farm, so we had to prune a few million poly's on some of the scenes, but if you just give us another two weeks, we can buy more hardware and re-render...
    • Client: The fuck? We go gold tomorrow! What part of "deadline" didn't you understand? Aaargh! You know what this'll cost us in reviewer kickbacks?

    OK, I'm over generalising. They sometimes got it just right, but a lot of the time they vastly over commited themselves and ended up with a final product that nobody really liked, least of all themselves.

    The problem as I see it is that the answer is always "yes". Models and stop motion put a well understood limit on what was achievable, and scenes were set and shot around those limits. Even when pushing the envelope like in SW:ANH, they didn't over stretch themselves or try anything that they knew they couldn't achieve.

    Contrast with SW:TPW, SW:AOTC and Spider-Man. The answer was always "yes". Go ahead, give us anything to do, and we'll do it. Let your imagination go wild.

    And what did we get? Ropey looking integration of CGI into live action scenes, ropey looking integration of live action into CGI scenes, 100% CGI scenes that jar badly with the live action.

    You can counter with Ray Harryhausen, but then I'll just have to roll out Alien, Aliens and Blade Runner. Do less, but do it well. Learn to say "no", guys.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Is it just me... by cybercuzco · · Score: 3, Funny
      CGI scenes that jar badly with the live action.

      Don't you mean Jar-Jar?

      --

    2. Re:Is it just me... by Comrade+Pikachu · · Score: 1

      I don't know what you mean by looking "ropey", but I do agree that the FX in this film generally sucked. The trend in FX heavy films seems to be towards shooting elements of a scene, and combining them in post production. The result is, quite often, a crappy shot like the establishing shot in Spider Man of the cultural festival, where the large balloons look as if they were pasted on as an afterthought. No consideration given to realistic camera placement or naturalistic composition.

      While technology allows one to make films without limits, filmmakers need to impose some limits on themselves, or films will lose their believability.

    3. Re:Is it just me... by KirkH · · Score: 1

      You know, I could tell where a lot of the CG scenes were, but they didn't take me out of the movie and I didn't dwell on them because what other choice was there?

      So you'd rather them wait 10 years to make this movie until CG get a little better? They did the best they could.

      In fact, I applaud S-M for it's CG because it didn't take over the film. They used it for the swinging scenes that couldn't have been done as well any other way. Or would you rather have seen a guy half-assed swing his way in front of a blue screen? That could have been much worse!

      Compare the relative scarcity of CG in S-M to the proliferation of it in TPM. They only used CG in S-M when they had no other choice.

    4. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, refering to all the star wars movies by their acronyms really makes you look like a SW:NERD.

  82. $114 million for the weekend? by ziegast · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's no doubt that the movie is having a successful weekend, but how successful was it?

    Is the John Harman a prophet? or is he just a part of the hype machine for Sony? He already seems to have wrapped up the weekend in past tense before it's even over.

    Spider-Man opened to $114 million on 3,615 screens

    At least the Yahoo article quoted sources:

    ... according to studio estimates issued on Sunday.

    Let's take it for what it's worth - propaganda. The goal is to get the people out there thinking, "Gosh, this movie is so popular. Maybe I should go out tonight and see it."

    The weekend is not over. Sony could hypothetically be ready to announce next weekend's box office results on Thursday this week. We'll all forget about Spider Man the following weekend when it's 15 minutes of hype^H^H^H^H fame are over when next Star Wars prequel is released.

    What movie company was beind movies like "The Animal" that garnered rave reviews from fictional critics?

    1. Re:$114 million for the weekend? by buffy · · Score: 2

      Ahh, I admire your skepticism.

      I'll cut slack only in that once the initial weekend numbers are in (read: Friday night) they can predict with scary accuracy what the numbers are going to be for the remainder of the weekend. The movie going public is fairly predictable as a whole, and given their analysis base (read: data collected for the past..umm..six decades--give or take a decade or so) I'm not too surprised.

      Given a large enough statistical base, you can predict a lot of things pretty accurately. Guarantees, no...predicitions, yes.

      Just my $0.02.

      -buffy

    2. Re:$114 million for the weekend? by mgblst · · Score: 3, Funny

      The movie going public is fairly predictable as a whole,

      Just like the sheep in my paddock... funny that!

  83. So now /. is a shill for Hollywood by burnsy · · Score: 1

    Hey /., thanks for posting meaningless box office numbers meant to self promote Hollywood.

    Why do you think these figures are never inflation adjusted, never talk about the number of screens, never tell us how many tickets were sold, and are released on Sunday morning before the weekend is even over?

  84. Should we care? by sconeu · · Score: 2

    Seriously. Should we care, other than the fact that it gives the MPAA that much more money in their warchest to buy away our rights?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  85. $70 million per.. by swein515 · · Score: 1

    Do not underestimate the power of Kirsten Dunst's breasts to put asses in seats.

  86. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by jcast · · Score: 1

    Super hero comics are for the emotionally retarded and psychologically off-balance.

    --

    If you have a problem with my views, REPLY, don't moderate!

    Hate to break it to you, but somethings aren't worth a reply, just moderation.

    (The only reason you're getting this one is because I lack points.)
    --
    There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
    -- David D. Friedman
  87. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was just hoping that the Green Goblin would kill Macy Gray.

  88. Hush now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll bum out all those who're feeling this comraderie in serfdom and liking it. You wet blanket.

  89. Kisten's knockers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kisten Dunst has awesome jubblies. That's what I'm going for!

  90. We're only going to see Kirsten Dunst's nipples. by wackybrit · · Score: 2

    No-one else has said it yet.. but.. whoa, Kirsten Dunst.. ain't she looking FINE? Great tits.

    Come on, you know that's what you're all thinking. Her tits and motherly looks could sell a film any day.

  91. Spidey Knocks Out Harry Potter? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've heard of Marvel vs. Capcom, but Marvel vs. Hogwartz? Now that's something I'd pay to see!

  92. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously have never read Watchmen, or DC's Vertigo line.

  93. As a New Yorker, I liked those touches! by Artifice_Eternity · · Score: 3, Insightful


    The people on the Queensborough Bridge and throwing stuff at the Gobiln really did embody the spirit of this city, as demonstrated not only on and after 9/11 but every day. If you don't live here, then you may believe the stereotypes of New Yorkers as pushy and rude. The fact is, there is a hell of a lot of solidarity, compassion and pride in this city, and I appreciated Raimi's and Koepp's homage to us.

    I also saw nothing wrong with Spidey's leap past an American flag at the end. It was not lingered on, and in fact many tall buildings in NYC do have flags on top of them, so it was not implausible. I am one of many who feel that the symbols of this country, like the flag, represent not so much its government as its people. Spider-Man and Peter Parker are fictional, but the values they represent ("with great power comes great responsibility") are important to many Americans. I didn't mind the flag at all, and I bet most viewers would agree.

    </my $0.02>

  94. Darth Vader and the red button by Dwaynewayne · · Score: 1

    He's got a green button and red button. What do they do?

    I bet the green one produces burritos!

    1. Re:Darth Vader and the red button by saddino · · Score: 1

      He's also got three quarter slots. I did notice that there isn't a coin return to be seen -- cheap ass Empire crooks.

  95. question... by dosun88888 · · Score: 1

    This only takes into account inflation. Wouldn't more people see movies now if they cost the same percentage of your weekly income as they used to? Movies used to cost $0.25.

    There are so many factors to take into account that I think any attempt at normalizing the profits is impossible. Like CD's, something else that costs a lot more than it used to relative to how much people make.

    ~D

    1. Re:question... by mooneyd · · Score: 1

      I suppose it depends on what you are trying to measure. Box office numbers are typically only concerned with strictly how much money a movie made. With this adjustment, we can look at how much money a movie made in the dollars of its day.

      I think some are trying to figure out which was the most popular movie ever made. Or perhaps, which was the best movie ever made. If that is the case, then box office numbers, no matter how they are adjusted are meaningless.

      Many people believe Godfather or Citizen Kane was the best movie ever made. A movie such as Wizard of Oz is argubly the most popular ever made given its wide appear and the fact that it is still a highly rented and televised picture.

    2. Re:question... by truesaer · · Score: 1

      So really what they should be doing then is counting number of tickets sold. I suppose the ticket-price-adjusted values bascially represent this though. And even if you then count only # of tickets, you have to consider the number of screens it was playing on, number of theatres, etc.

  96. bleh by Starship+Trooper · · Score: 3, Funny
    All your funny are belong to a year ago!

    Somebody set up us the dead horse!

    You have no chance to be humourous make your time!

    --
    Loneliness is a power that we possess to give or take away forever
  97. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by WankersRevenge · · Score: 1

    Woody Allen said it best in his little film

    "He has made some very financially successful American films."

    "That should tell you everything you need to know about him."

  98. Aside from the trolls and AC posts by f00zbll · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I saw the movie saturday and was happily surprised and entertained. Given most movies by-pass character development for T&A or something equivalent, it is nice the movie spent time on developing the main characters.

    Don't get me wrong, there were flaws, but overall it was a good movie and really entertaining. For me, it is better than X-men and the first Batman. I like character development, so having peter parker go through the awkward phase of learning how to use his powers was great fun. Plus having him wrestle was just too funny.

  99. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by susano_otter · · Score: 2

    It was awesome, as long as you had no plans to take it seriously. The only problem I had was that I saw it in an empty theater. A lot of the really funny lines ended up falling flat because there wasn't enough of an audience to generate a satisfying laugh response.

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  100. What does money have to do with it? by maddmike · · Score: 1

    Isn't the amount of money just related to the marketing campagin associated with the movie? I think a real test of a move is the test of time, counting box office reciepts is just for accountants.

  101. This one will make Marvel some real money by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Interesting story on CNN yesterday about this and other Marvel movies. Marvel sold the movie rights for X-Men for a fixed fee of $350,000. They got no royalties at all. X-Men was a big hit in theaters, and on DVD, and none of that went to Marvel.

    The deal for Spiderman, and for Daredevil and Hulk in the next year or so, is more normal, and they will get royalties.

    1. Re:This one will make Marvel some real money by mshiltonj · · Score: 2

      The deal for Spiderman, and for Daredevil and Hulk in the next year or so, is more normal, and they will get royalties.

      Hulk? Holy shit! It's IMDB Listing doesn't say who who's going to be the Hulk? Is he going to be all CGI?

      Looking forward to that one!

    2. Re:This one will make Marvel some real money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you want to know more about the hulk, go here tnmc.org

  102. Here's an idea... by Nameles · · Score: 1

    (go ahead mods, mark me as flamebait)
    ... why not just ignore that and try to enjoy the damn movie you just put $7 down for.

  103. ...after every popular movie.. by SparkyMartin · · Score: 1

    First of all, why is this TROLL modded up??

    Anyways, good one! lol So that explains why the first showings of Spider-Man were all sold out days in advance-friends told other friends that it was "ah soo cool" ?????

    You know, after a movie sets an attendance or revenue record there is always a small but very whiney group of sorry asses that uses the "over-hyped" or some other lame excuse to explain why the movies did so well, then after they see it keep it up with the like of "Worst movie I ever saw....Cabin Boy was better...more typical hollywood garbage." This happened with Titanic, happened with Fellowship of the Ring, and is happening with Spiderman already.

    Spider-Man did not have any more hype than any other big movie. Now the Scorpion King, that was massively over hyped, yet it was hardly a blockbuster. What gives?

    As far as non-fans seeing the movie, well DUH, good observation! Do you think only fans of Tolken saw Fellowship of the Ring?

    Anyways, I saw the movie, and belive it or not, I am a fan and did not go because someone told me to. I expected it to be wildly sucessful, but not near as well as it has done. Way to go spidey!

  104. Hey dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The MPAA did not produce this movie, and does not get the profits from it.

    Sony made this movie. Going to this movie means giving money to Sony.

  105. Escapism sells by Macrobat · · Score: 2
    I agree, there's something a little peculiar about the amount of escapist movies on the top 50 there. Movies can and should be about serious topics, too--myself, I like both, but it comes and goes in phases. Probably with what's available on the big screen; I'll rent a DVD or tape for a quiet talky drama.

    But that's the answer to why Hollywood makes so many escapist films--because they sell enough to place a movie on the all-time best-seller list.

    (On another note, I think one of the strengths of "The Exorcist" is how well it works as a drama even when you edit out all the head-spinning icky-goo parts. And the acting! Lee J. Cobb acting against type, and Jason Miller--a Pulitzer-prize winning playwright and Tony-winning director himself--round out an unusually solid cast.)

    --
    "Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
  106. Not the only question by fireboy1919 · · Score: 2

    Based upon that, Gone with the Wind is much more popular than otherwise thought because nobody had a lot more than $.25 back then. There are many other factors to consider, though. Like for instance, during economic downturn, entertainment industries thrive (it serves as a form of escapism). Also, the theme of "Gone with the Wind" which is "I will personally rebuild the life that was taken from me" spoke to the entire nation of the time. Its been a while since the US was as unified in misery or anything else (although 9/11 certainly came close).

    Still, it goes to show that "Gone with the Wind" was almost needed at the time. People almost needed to see it. So its going to be the most popular for a long time, hopefully. If this nation is that unified again, we'll either be really pissed or really sad, and I'd rather not see either condition.

    On a similar note, the first cliffhanger, the Pickwick Papers (by Charles Dickens) still holds the record as being bought and read by more of the literate world than any (non-Bible) in the history of the world. Wierd, huh?

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  107. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously hbt. yhl. hand.

  108. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Mika_Lindman · · Score: 1

    And remember not to skip those trailers with your Tivo or similiar device ! That too would be stealing from the movie company.

  109. There didn't need to be that much hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't need to hype it a lot because they don't need to introduce the character and his struggle and why we should go see it. Most people I imagine at least know of spider-man, know that he's a comic book character, he's a good guy, and he fights bad guys. The character already has over 40 years of hype already implanted in much of america's mind, most of it being put their when they were kids. There's no need for them to spend anymore money. Just enough to let people out there know about it, it certainly sells itself after that.

  110. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As was I. I hate that guy's voice.

  111. Excellent? Is $ the way to keep score? by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    Spider-Man picked up an Amazing $114 million dollars at the box office, squishing Harry Potter's $90.3 million like a bug.

    Really, I never could give a rat's ass for these kinds of announcements, and it means little to me whether Sam Raimi is a capable director or not. I take the numbers with a salt lick, as from my impression it's just a device to try to drum up attendance. Is it ever verified? Or would it just be some great trick pulled by the MPAA on a repeatedly duped public, who will then be wondering why such a successful movie doesn't get squat for academy awards.

    The story was pretty good, the live stuff was pretty good, the computer animation was on par with 10, maybe 15 years go, or a typical video game today -- how do you applaud someone for letting that drek into the finished film?

    As for profitable, you ought to know by now that Hollywood has a strange, imoral and probably illegal way of keeping track of money. The receipts for these movies are also a statistical measure, because you know they really don't have some central database system tracking all this when some theaters are still handing out little orange stubs and stuffing the money in a drawer to be counted later, probably Monday.

    As for opening days, first weeks, overalls, etc. it would really be interesting to see how this stacks up against opening of Gone With the Wind, ET or Return of the Jedi with dollars adjusted for inflation. What you never hear is an estimate of how many bodies they got into theater seats, also, track it next weekend, as the word-of-mouth gets around and we see whether it has lasting power.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  112. CD prices have *dropped* relative to CPI by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Like CD's, something else that costs a lot more than it used to relative to how much people make.

    Compact discs have been $15-$20 in the USA since they first came out. Compared to the Consumer Price Index (the most popular measure of inflation in the USA), the price of a CD has dropped, but thanks to improved recording, mixing, and mastering techniques, the fidelity of the audio has increased. (I speak only of the quality of the reproduction, not the quality of the underlying compositions and performances.)

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  113. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Chrethon · · Score: 1

    Uh, you shouldn't really be talking about what you don't know anything about.

    If you're actually interesting in broadening your horizons, I strongly suggest you pick up comic book collections like Sandman, the Books of Magic, MiracleMan, Watchmen, Preacher, or even the Dark Knight Returns. These are incredibly moving and deep pieces that show the format of comic books are not just for 'kiddys' as you put it.

    I would also bring contention to your point about people who read comic books as 'emotionally retarded'. Personally, I believe that comic books, like any form of art, give people the potential to become more emotionally developed by discussing serious and powerful topics in an entertaining format. Comic books are a way of reflecting an issue or conflict in normal life with the twist of superpowers thrown in. The stories themselves are still very human and realistic.

    In any case, I did see the movie, and I thought it perfectly portrayed the struggle that Peter Parker goes through all the time: how to keep his loved ones safe, and how to live up to the responsibility that has been thrust upon him. He's a very tortured and guilt-filled character, and I think that Sam Raimi got this across incredibly well (even though I don't think much of Toby Maguire as an actor personally, but that's my own personal bias). One can see Peter as the truly self-sacrificing hero at the end when Harry exclaims that he'll get revenge on Spider-Man, when Peter could have just told Harry the truth and crushed his beliefs about his father. Anyway, that's my $.02.

  114. Re:Excellent? Is $ the way to keep score? by Cow4263 · · Score: 2, Informative

    As for opening days, first weeks, overalls, etc. it would really be interesting to see how this stacks up against opening of Gone With the Wind, ET or Return of the Jedi with dollars adjusted for inflation. What you never hear is an estimate of how many bodies they got into theater seats, also, track it next weekend, as the word-of-mouth gets around and we see whether it has lasting power.

    All-Time Box Offices[Adjusted for Inflation] (Gone With the Wind is #1, Titanic is *only* #7)

    Some other lists (@ boxofficemojo.com)

  115. Is this explainable? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

    Gone with the Wind, 198M in 1939 dollars, 1.1B in 2002 dollars, a ratio of 5.7.

    Ten Commandments, 65M (one third GWTW) in 1956 dollars, 760M in 2002 dollars, a ratio of 11.7.

    Now this makes no sense, it implies there was serious deflation from 1939 to 1956.

    However!

    What if they don't count box office receipts from just the release year, but actually account for inflation in each year of ticket sales? This just might be accurate. Has the Ten Commandments ever been re-released? I know GWTW has been re-released at least once.

    Very puzzling. Wish they'd explain their methodology a bit.

    1. Re:Is this explainable? by cybermage · · Score: 2

      Now this makes no sense, it implies there was serious deflation from 1939 to 1956.

      Actually, I read someplace that tickets were more for GWTW than for other movies (ranging from $.75 - $1.10.) Maybe this accounts for it, somehow. Maybe $198M means 198M tickets sold * today's average per ticket = $1.1B today. If that's true, and their adjusting tickets sold to todays price, then tickets for Ten Commandments were, roughly, $.55 on average. I don't believe there was this kind of deflation, but average ticket prices in 1939 may have been $.25 and GWTW was simply more per ticket than the average.

      I know GWTW has been re-released at least once.

      Here's some amusing trivia for you:

      I have heard from several sources, but never personally checked, that the theater at CNN Center in Atlanta has been showing GWTW every day since the theater opened with no plans of stopping. It's become a tourist attraction.

  116. Wait just a minute here. by Rhinobird · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are you guys saying you wanted REALISM from a movie based on a COMIC BOOK? (smacks forehead)

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  117. I'm suppoed to put them away? by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

    I ddin't know I was supposed to put the comic books AWAY. All I did was gor from Archie and transformers to cherry poptart and eveangelion.

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  118. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 2

    I don't need other people to laugh for me. This is why I dislike canned laughter on comedy programmes on TV.

    graspee

  119. everyone can identify with ?? by malaba · · Score: 1

    If you are from US or UK maybe,

    but here, in the "rest of the world",
    sider man mean no more than harry potter

    AND

    Harry Potter touch more people,
    boys _AND_ girls, childrens and adults.

    not just those that have read Spider Man
    comic book in their childhood...

    Does girl identify themself with spider man ??
    Adult that didn't know spider man exist ?
    A superhero that fight "good vs evil",
    climb wall and throw web, are you serious ?

    my 2 cents.

  120. Re:Excellent? Is $ the way to keep score? by ebbomega · · Score: 2

    "Really, I never could give a rat's ass for these kinds of announcements, and it means little to me whether Sam Raimi is a capable director or not. I take the numbers with a salt lick, as from my impression it's just a device to try to drum up attendance. Is it ever verified? Or would it just be some great trick pulled by the MPAA on a repeatedly duped public, who will then be wondering why such a successful movie doesn't get squat for academy awards."

    Well, I'd say it gauges pretty well for the people WITH the money who are investing in movies.

    Raimi's done a lot of movies, but very few big budget ones. Army of Darkness was probably his biggest prior to Spidey, and that didn't return much at the box office.

    Oh well. I was happy to see Bruce and Ted in this movie... But yeah, twould be insatiably cool to see another Evil Dead... S-Mart Avenger strikes again. =)

    --
    Karma: Non-Heinous
  121. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Xaoswolf · · Score: 1

    Of course the entire movie was BS, do you think that they were actually making a serious movie. Think about this for a minute, they made a cyber Jason that was worse looking than the Super Shredder(TMNT 2 anyone?), the best lines of the movie were "We love premarital sex" and "He only wanted his machette back", and the coolest death consisted of Jason beating one camper in a sleeping bag with another camper in her sleeping bag. The whole movie was a joke, which you appearently didn't get. Spider-man; however should have ended about an hour earlier than it did. Halfway throught the movie I had to stop making jokes about it because the only thing I could think about was how much I had to pee, and that if I got up to go, whether or not it would be worth it to come back.

  122. Re:Excellent? Is $ the way to keep score? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    What? No Captain Klutz? ;)

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  123. Re:Excellent? Is $ the way to keep score? by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    Thanks for the link, cool stuff.

    PS Ya don't suppose Taco feels vindicated at outdoing Harry, do you? After all, both really are kids flicks. ;)

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  124. Isn't spider web 10 times stronger than steel? by emil · · Score: 2

    Assuming that a sufficient quantity of the material could be synthesized with the required tensile strength to hold a human, it might not have that much mass.

    But granted, it does strain credulity.

  125. harry potter by msouth · · Score: 2

    Something you might want to think about is the amount of time that Spider=Man has had time to build up an audience vs Harry Potter.

    (Aside from the fact that if you had 90 cents and I had $1.14 I would hardly think my bank account squashed yours like a bug...)

    --
    Liberty uber alles.
    1. Re:harry potter by nurightshu · · Score: 2

      (Aside from the fact that if you had 90 cents and I had $1.14 I would hardly think my bank account squashed yours like a bug...)

      Now multiply that by 10^8. Still seem like a trifling difference? Yeah. That's what I thought.

      --
      They that would sacrifice their .sig space for that cliched Franklin quote deserve neither.
    2. Re:harry potter by msouth · · Score: 2

      My point is that it's the same difference, percentage wise. It's nt that much. The 10^8 may seem big to you, but that's the kind of numbers the movies deal with. The fact that we are not used to them is a red herring, hence my effort to point it out. Anything that doesn't double the last thing hasn't "squashed it like a bug" in my opinion, and I would be hard pressed to say that even doubling qualifies as "squashing".

      --
      Liberty uber alles.
  126. Do they ever adjust for attendance? by sweaterboy · · Score: 1

    I've always thought it was odd how they rate how popular a movie is based on gross earning, I'm a-lot more curious about how many people actually went to the theatre to see it. I guess its based on a hollywood beancounter system. I'm sure they wouldn't care if 5 people saw it , as long as they all paid a $100,000,000.00 ticket price.

  127. YOuuuu.... by ctimes2 · · Score: 1

    Geek.
    :)

    --
    My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
  128. Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture by Steve+B · · Score: 1
    If you have a problem with my views, REPLY, don't moderate!
    One horse laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms.
    --H. L. Mencken
    --
    /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  129. Theater Averages. by ProfBooty · · Score: 2

    http://www.the-movie-times.com/thrsdir/TopTen.mv

    Look at what is said for the price charged per theater aka theater average(I believe for spiderman it was 31k per showing). That doesn't mean that they sold 31k of tickets per theatre, but just that the theater paid the studio 31k for showing the movie. The price rapidly drops after opening weekend. I seriousy doubt that each theater seats 4 thousand people who pay 8 dollars a piece to see the movie.

    Therefore it is possible for more people to see a movie which only costs $5000 a showing as oppossed to 31k in this case.

    Its really quite misleading.

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.