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.

Comments

Screens

[lemonk]

It is worthwhile to mention that Spider-Man is being shown on over 1000 screens more than AOTC, etc.

Re:Screens

[StudMuffin]

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.

Re:Screens

[big.ears]

All this box-office gamesmanship is kinda silly. If you want to assess the human value or impact of a film (or a movie), I can assure you that the just about the worst way to do it is to count how much money it reportedly took in in ticket sales. Ever wonder why nobody records the number of ticket sales (which are already adjusted for inflation), but rather calculates raw sales $$? It is mainly to build hype for a film, because even a moderate success this year is bound to beat the blockbuster from two years ago. "Box Office Records" are laughable, because they are guaranteed to fall.

By making these arguments about total gross/per theater gross/screens/etc., we are just playing into the Hollywood money machine's hand. But, myself a victim to this game, I believe the 3615/3161 number indicates venues or physical locations where the film is played, whereas the number of actual "Prints" is something like 7500 vs. 6000, which is what the parent was apparently quoting. I don't know if anyone has actually recorded the number of screenings anywhere. Given that AOTC was a little longer than Spidey, this translates into fewer screenings per venue, as well as fewer per print: The difference between 2 hours and 2 hours 20 minutes is enough to reduce the number of screenings at some little theaters from 2 to 1 or from 3 to 2 per day; at multiplexes, it may reduce the number of showings from 15 to 12.

Re:Screens

[tsiar]

What's really annoying, is that those numbers you quoted are THEATERS, not SCREENS.

Clones opened up playing on approximately 6,100 screens at 3,161 theaters across North America

Spider-man Swinging into 3,615 theaters ... with an estimated 7,500 prints

The math still works out that spiderman made more per screen, but of course the Thursday opening isn't taken into account.

Spider-man is better?

[schwatoo]

Yeah I thought so too. I just loved that scene with the New Yorkers on the bridge throwing down junk at the Green Goblin to distract him from beating up Spidey. "You mess with him and you mess with us!".

As plot devices go that's up there with destroying an Alien battle fleet with a PowerMac and Word Macro Virus

These statistics seem meaningless...

[linuxrunner]

First of all, when I'm told a movie grossed the most $$$ ever, I cringe.
These stats are great for me knowing that yes, Spiderman sold more tickets than Star Wars at the box office this year... But don't tell me it's the best selling movie ever. It's probably not!

I mean, look at how much it costs to buy a ticket today.. What, $8.50 round about?

So what you're telling me that year after year, with inflation, there will always be a bigger and better blockbuster according to gross sales?
Why has no one EVER ajusted for inflation? For all I know the best and most watched movie way Ben Hur... hehe....

Re:These statistics seem meaningless...

[oopy_-_]

Someone in fact has done this math:

Top 100 Ever Adjusted

The list makes a lot more sense with this math, though Titanic still gets ranked too highly. Unfortunately, this is only adjusted with the Consumer Price Index. I think someone should adjust for population growth as well.

Something to think about

[ciurana]

I was watching CNN Headline News on Saturday morning when they interviewed the film critic for Entertainment Tonight. My attitude toward the $115 million box office mark is the same as his answer to the AOTC vs. Spider-Man question: Why should I care? I'm not getting a piece of the action.

The important thing is that, for the $9 I paid for my ticket, I got a comfortable seat and an a magical experience watching the film. I thought both movies were very entertaining and already watched Spider-Man twice. I'm going to watch AOTC again because I want to see the digital version (go Yoda!). Now, I couldn't care less about which movie made the more $$$ because I'm not among the people whose net worth was increased by the box office take.

Discussing this box office take rivalry is like arguing who is the coolest millionaire, Ellison or Gates? I don't really care. All I care is how their products perform and how they affect my business.

Cheers!

E

Re:So who would win in a fight?

[Drachemorder]

Or, since Anakin is E-vile, Spider-Man should win, since Good always truimphs over Evil (just ask the folks who used to work for Enron.)

No, Anakin wins BECAUSE he's evil. Don't you know that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb?

I'm just reminded what Green Goblin tells Spidey..

[Brian_Ellenberger]

With regards to the SW vs. Spider-Man, I'm reminded about what the Green Goblin tells Spidey in the movie. He basically tells him that it is no use being the good guy because everyone will try and tear you down anyway. People like building someone up and then tearing them down.

The new SW movies are evidence of that. Far too many of the "fans" are just out there to tear down SW with any nitpick they can come up with and build up a new "hero". Sure there are many problems with the new SW films. But there are many problems with the old ones as well (whiney Luke, bad dialog, etc).

I think people are too quick to tear down SW. It is a movie, not a religion. And it is a film for everyone, not just geeks. I think the general public likes the new SW films more than the hardcore geeks like to admit. I showed the Phantom Menace to my mother-in-law on Friday and she loved it. So much that our whole family saw AOTC on Sunday. The exit polls show people rating AOTC as a A-. I bet the minus comes from SW "fans".

In fact, the hardcore SW fans are hurting SW more than anything. By dressing up and standing in line and such they are threatening to reduce SW to simple geekdom (see Star Trek). Normal people generally avoid geekdom, and I bet alot of people are turned off on SW just because of the so-called-fans.

My final rant is that if Lucas was in it SOLELY for the money he would have made 10 SW films by now and 7 of them would be cheap crappy films (see Star Trek). Also he would have shown them on as many screens as possible instead of limiting them to the ones with digital sound.
Sure he likes a profit as much as anyone, but he is also SW's biggest and best fan.

Meanwhile, I'm waiting to see how much the Slashdot crowd turns on Spider-Man 2 and the Matrix Reloaded.

Brian Ellenberger

Re:I completly Agree

[crucini]

Those who view it as inferior to the first trilogy are looking at Those three throught the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia.

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:

• Qi-Gong jumping out the window to grab a flying vehicle immediately set
  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.
  
• Anakin is just too moody, unstable and immature to be trusted with any independent assignment, let alone guarding a crucial politician. I wouldn't let this guy wash my car - it would probably end up in Tijuana. This lessens both the credibility of the movie and the ability to connect with the character. Luke had the same traits to a lesser degree, but he was not deliberately entrusted with much responsibility.
  
• Darth Vader was one of the best villains in any movie. The subsequent Star Wars movies have failed to come up with anyone nearly as impressive.
  
• Star Wars is the story of a young guy from a boring hick town, a strange old desert rat with a zen-like calm, and a cocky smuggler who inadvertently take on the Death Star. AOTC is about a group of powerful, privileged and respected people who ward off a possible challenge to their privileged position.
  

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.