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."
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...
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!
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...
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
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.
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!"
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.
With the new Star Wars movie coming out in two weeks it will be a short lived record.
Please explain how the results for this weekend have been computed. It is still in the afternoon on Sunday when I write this.
Spider sense... tingling.
Harry Potter... bitchslapped.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
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.
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.
... ,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!
"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.
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.
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.
The Free desktop that Just Works
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!
>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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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?!
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!
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.
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).
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.
Xaotik Designs
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Two decades of Hollywood horseshit is being buried under righteous indignation.
Go Stan.
--Blair
"'Nuff sed."
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.
WILLEM Defoe. WILLEM.
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.
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...
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.
In case its not totally obvious, those numbers are estimates... The actual numbers won't come until Monday at the earliest.
" it really seemed like too much of a cross between Alien, Terminater, and 9 other Friday the 13th movies."
Whoah! Sounds awesome!
graspee
you are *almost* (but not quite) kind of funny, in a trollish sort of way
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!
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.
libertarianswag.com
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
and share your "home" videos!
Got friends?
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--
Wah! Waaaah! WAAAAHHH!
That's enough to more than account for the continual increases in ticket prices...I guess it really DID beat it.
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.
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...
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
... 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:
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.
There's no doubt that the movie is having a successful weekend, but how successful was it?
... according to studio estimates issued on Sunday.
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:
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?
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?
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.
Do not underestimate the power of Kirsten Dunst's breasts to put asses in seats.
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
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.
mogorific carpentry experiments
I've heard of Marvel vs. Capcom, but Marvel vs. Hogwartz? Now that's something I'd pay to see!
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>
He's got a green button and red button. What do they do?
I bet the green one produces burritos!
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
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
The deal for Spiderman, and for Daredevil and Hulk in the next year or so, is more normal, and they will get royalties.
(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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
And remember not to skip those trailers with your Tivo or similiar device ! That too would be stealing from the movie company.
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
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?
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.
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)
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.
Infuriate left and right
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
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
I don't need other people to laugh for me. This is why I dislike canned laughter on comedy programmes on TV.
graspee
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.
"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
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.
Xaotik Designs
What? No Captain Klutz? ;)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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
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.
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.
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.
Geek.
:)
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
the only way peter could stand up to flash was through his superpowers
"Teachers leave us kids alone
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.
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
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
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.