Spidey Knocks Out Harry Potter at Box Office 403
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."
Not surprising.... (Score:2, Informative)
I'm sure no one saw these figures coming from a mile away...
Re:Not surprising.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Not surprising.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not surprising.... (Score:2)
I had never even heard of the film.
Re:Not surprising.... (Score:2)
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
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)
Re:Not surprising.... (Score:2)
Re:Not surprising.... (Score:2)
Re:Not surprising.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SPOILER ALERT!! SPOILER!! (Score:2)
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."?
Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Excellent (Score:2)
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.
Not quite excellent (Score:2)
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?
Re:Not quite excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
A Simple Plan. (Score:2)
And now he's showing that his range extends even further. Ah, our man Sam---is there anything he can't do?
--grendel drago
Anyone see For the Love of the Game? (Score:2)
Re:Anyone see For the Love of the Game? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Excellent (Score:2, Informative)
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 [bruce-campbell.com]:
"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.
Not suprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not suprised (Score:2)
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 [boxofficemojo.com] 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.
Re:Not suprised (Score:2)
Where's the Jon Katz review? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Where's the Jon Katz review? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Where's the Jon Katz review? (Score:3, Interesting)
Better link (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't believe TItanic made that much!
Do they ever adjust for inflation? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Do they ever adjust for inflation? (Score:5, Informative)
The full list is here [boxofficemojo.com].
Very, very interesting site.
Escapism sells (Score:2)
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.)
Re:Do they ever adjust for inflation? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Pretty large bug.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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....
Re:Pretty large bug.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pretty large bug.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Pretty large bug.. (Score:2)
Re:Pretty large bug.. (Score:2)
Re:Pretty large bug.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Please explain how... (Score:2, Insightful)
Spiderman's Response (Score:4, Funny)
Harry Potter... bitchslapped.
Re:Spiderman's Response (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Spiderman's Response (Score:2)
graspee
Re:Spiderman's Response (Score:3, Funny)
I guess action truly is his reward...
bleh (Score:3, Funny)
Somebody set up us the dead horse!
You have no chance to be humourous make your time!
This number is meaningless (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:This number is meaningless (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:This number is meaningless (Score:2)
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.
Re:This number is meaningless (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:This number is meaningless (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:This number is meaningless (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:This number is meaningless (Score:2)
Re:This number is meaningless (Score:2)
w00t! (Score:3, Insightful)
That, and it sure can't hurt the odds of better comic book based movies being made in the future.
Re:w00t! (Score:2)
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!"
Newsflash (Score:2, Insightful)
Ever seem me surprized?
Take a good look.
This is it.
Re:Newsflash (Score:2)
Inflation (Score:2, Redundant)
Nice movie, except for.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Nice movie, except for.. (Score:2)
graspee
Re:Nice movie, except for.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Nice movie, except for.. (Score:2)
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.
As a New Yorker, I liked those touches! (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>
Re:Nice movie, except for.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Nice movie, except for.. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Isnt it funny (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Isnt it funny (Score:2)
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.
Re:Isnt it funny (Score:2)
All they had to do was let Stan Lee have his way. (Score:2)
Go Stan.
--Blair
"'Nuff sed."
Not surprising because ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Estimates (Score:2)
I did my part to help... (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re:I did my part to help... (Score:2)
And yes, I managed to last the entire film without getting sick :).
Has Hollywood Hype Increased? (Score:2, Insightful)
Looking over the statistics at boxofficemojo.com [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 [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 [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
Re:Has Hollywood Hype Increased? (Score:2)
Movie piracy is bankrupting the industry! (Score:3, Funny)
Is it just me... (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:
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.
Re:Is it just me... (Score:3, Funny)
Don't you mean Jar-Jar?
$114 million for the weekend? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:$114 million for the weekend? (Score:3, Funny)
Just like the sheep in my paddock... funny that!
Should we care? (Score:2)
We're only going to see Kirsten Dunst's nipples. (Score:2)
Come on, you know that's what you're all thinking. Her tits and motherly looks could sell a film any day.
Spidey Knocks Out Harry Potter? (Score:2, Funny)
Aside from the trolls and AC posts (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
This one will make Marvel some real money (Score:4, Interesting)
The deal for Spiderman, and for Daredevil and Hulk in the next year or so, is more normal, and they will get royalties.
This may be a bit early yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
For what? So we can say, "Hey look everyone, they were never really there!" So strange.
Hey, I resent that! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (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
Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (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'.
Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (Score:2)
Whoah! Sounds awesome!
graspee
Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (Score:2)
Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (Score:2)
Re:So Nerdy, so Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Character! (Score:2)
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
Um... (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).
Re:Um... (Score:2)
graspee
Re:So Nerdy, so Slashdot... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Short Lived Title (Score:2)
So its like they cant lose.
Re:Short Lived Title (Score:2)
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.
Re:Quality (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Quality (Score:2)
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.
Re:Hype gage (Score:2)
Re:Can someone who has seen the movie... (Score:2)
Re:Buy Marvel stock!! (Score:2)
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.