Slashdot Mirror
Episode II Surpasses $116 Million at Box Office
Domasi writes "The Force is with George Lucas again as the fifth installment of the Star Wars saga, 'Attack of the Clones,' took in $116.3 million in its first four days and to become the second-fastest film behind only "Spider-Man"." Spider-man is better. But I plan to see both of them again.
I'd see it again just to see yoda fight. I just wish there was a clear ending to the fight so everyone could have cheered for him.
A large part of this was due to Lucas' condition that if a theater shows AOTC, that it show for a minimum of four weeks. Smaller theaters with only a few screens can't support this kind of commitment during the summer movie season. So, since Spider-Man had no such condition, it opened (and stayed) on more screens.
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel. -
I found myself watching it the first time for "what happens next". I went again this weekend and enjoyed it WAY more because I watched what was happening. The subtle detail in each scene put a smile on my face more often than not.
TheForce.net had a good thread running about "the little things" in the film.
I think the repeat business will keep Clones going for a little bit.
-techwolf
I don't do this for karma, I do it for cash. It's much better.
But Spider-Man was on 1,500 more screens than Episode II because Lucas wanted to only show Episode II in theaters equipped with digital sound.
Anyone have the per-screen averages?
I loved Episode 2, but there were a few things that seemed a little too familiar...
Count Dooko's speech about "The Dark Lord" and his pleas of "Join me!" caused a little too much deja vu, since it has only been months since watching Lord of the Rings.
The clone factory on Kamino where 'humans are no longer born, they're grown' seemed to be borrowed directly from the matrix.
The gladiatorial style execution seemed to be inspired by another recent film. Besides that, the crab-like monster looked, sounded, and moved a lot like the aliens from Starship Troopers.
Yoda, Anakin, and the other Jedi borrowed quite a few martial arts moves from the characters in the matrix. They didn't fight that way in Episode One.
The cityscape of Corusant and the opening chase sequence was a little too reminiscent of the Fifth Element.
Just a few things I noticed! Hopefully $116M is just the beginning. It may be too optimistic to hope that it unseats Titanic as the box office record holder, but one can hope...
-- Adam
Because Spiderman is pure and simple popular story-telling, while AOTC was full of histrionics and exposition, much of which would probably be useless and/or confusing if you hadn't seen all of the other films.
I know this is going to sound strange, but as far as ease of digestion goes, it's almost as if AOTC is the art house gourmet movie and Spiderman is the summer popcorn movie.
You have to note this: Spider-Man wa shown on more screens in their 3-day opening, than in Star Wars EP2 4-day opening. I think it was on 1500 more screens (if I remember correctly).
Given that fact and good math skill, EP2 did outdo Spider-Man. Either way.. I've seen them both twice anyways.. they both rock.
thelikesofwhich.com
Regardless of which one is deemed the "better" film of two, one thing I do like about Attack of the Clones is that its release date of May 16 was pretty much synchronised throughout the world. Living in Australia it can be quite frustrating to read about all these great films currently showing in America and having to wait a month or two till it starts showing here. Spiderman is an example, you people in the US have been able to see it since early May but those of us in Australia have to wait till June.
Out of curiousity does anyone know what factors determine whether a film gets a synchronised global release or not?
aus.music.scrapbook
Mod Me down if you must, but ...
:)
:)
This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors,ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane...
but seriously, this whole "box office" rating thing is pointless.. the #1 box office movie should be rated on # of ticket sales, not # of $$$..
By the current rating standard, a movie with 2x the ticket price only has to sell half as many tickets to be rated as high as the inverse...
I'm not by any means saying that ATOC shouldn't be up there with the greats, but don't base your facts & reports on something variable (such as ticket prices... or even dynamic IP's)
ok, i'm done now *steps off soap box*
I did.
Movies are getting more and more expensive (2 people = $8 tickets x 2, popcorn = $4, 2 drinks = $7, candy = $4 = 16 + 4 + 7 + 4 = $31 just for the movie experience).
Yes, I'll agree going to the movies is getting more expensive. But it pales miserably in comparison to attending pro sports events. According to this article on Motley Fool, it costs about $150 for a family of four to attend a baseball game (and baseball is the cheapest of the four major sports to attend). If I wanted to take my dad and 2 brothers to a Redskins game (admittly the priciest of all NFL teams), it would cost me $442.54. For my money, I'd get four average tickets, 4 small drinks, 2 small beers, 4 hotdogs, 2 programs, parking, and 2 hats. Compared to the price of a sports event, watching a flick is a bargin. No weather to worry about, you don't have to go to a major city to see one, and you can pick anytime you want to go pretty much. And, if you want to save a couple bucks, there are always the matinees. Is going to the movies getting more expensive? Definitely. But for 3 hours of entertainment, much easier on my wallet than to catch a game.
BigCat79
"The dead have risen and are voting Republican!" --Bart Simpson
I agree with other Slashdotters (and movie fans) who say that comparing movie grosses is an 'apples-to-oranges' comparison: inflation, competition, number of screens, and perhaps other factors, make 'first-weekend grosses' pretty much headline fodder only, not a good number comparisons can be based on.
Here's a modest proposal to accurately compare movie 'x' and movie 'y':
How many tickets were sold for the entire first-run screening of the movie?
If one million people saw "Star Wars" in 1977 (a made-up number, I know...) and one million people saw "Attack of the Clones" in 2002, I'd suggest that both moves were equally popular.
Does anyone have any idea if such a statistic is published anywhere?
"For every right, an equal responsibility..."
I seriously considered that possibility. Then I downloaded the script of Star Wars (aka "the first movie") and read it through. My reading confirmed my impression that it is far superior to AOTC. A few differences:
the tone of a very unrealistic movie in which the heroes would perform superhuman feats. And sure enough, the characters go through a lot of stuff that would surely have killed or maimed them, like jumping out of an aircraft in flight. In Star Wars, I think the closest thing is Luke and Leia swinging across the shaft. That was risky but believable.
I could write a lot more, but I think the movies are deeply different. Certainly there are some aspects that remain the same, and to that extent your remark about rose-colored glasses could be true. But on the whole, AOTC is a very inferior movie.