×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

403 comments

Fuck this poop shit! (-1, Troll)

L.Torvalds (548450) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466711)

FIRSTLY, I'd like to say, "FUCK LINUX", with arms akimbo!

i remember in the game... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466724)

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

Not surprising.... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466733)

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...

Re:Not surprising.... (4, Interesting)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466826)

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

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

Re:Not surprising.... (1)

Xaoswolf (524554) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466846)

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

Re:Not surprising.... (1)

Dexx (34621) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466935)

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

Wonderful... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466736)

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

Quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466737)

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

Well (1, Interesting)

elite lamer (533654) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466738)

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.

Excellent (4, Insightful)

Cow4263 (312716) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466740)

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...

Re:Excellent (1)

Pedro Picasso (1727) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466753)

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

Re:Excellent (2, Informative)

skeller (145333) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466794)

Negative. Evil Dead is a trilogy. It's fine that way. Leave it. Bruce Campbell has said often that he wouldn't care to do another one

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

Re:Excellent (2)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466807)

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

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

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

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

A Simple Plan. (2)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466854)

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

Anyone see For the Love of the Game? (2)

Macrobat (318224) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466906)

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?

Not suprised (4, Insightful)

Dalaram (447015) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466746)

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...

Re:Not suprised (1)

agent oranje (169160) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466886)

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

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

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

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

-agent q. oranje

Re:Not suprised (2)

SimplyCosmic (15296) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466913)

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

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

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

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

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

Just for some numbers, a quick look at Box Office Mojo [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.

Didn't we read this on cnn.com? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466747)

what does slashdot provide?!!? a portal? ha ha ha!

Re:Didn't we read this on cnn.com? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466847)

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

Spider-Man is a Super Hero for Pussies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466748)

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

hello. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466751)

I would like to bone Megam Morrone.

()()==jjjj,=D~~~~

Re:hello. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466879)

would like to bone Megam Morrone.

I did and i can tell you she is a great fuck. She swallowed every drop of my jizz and let me titty fuck her till it hurt.

P.S. she really digs anal sex too. I loved putting my 10 inch cock up her cute little starfish.

Where's the Jon Katz review? (5, Funny)

Pave Low (566880) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466764)

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.

Re:Where's the Jon Katz review? (0, Offtopic)

rmohr02 (208447) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466782)

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

Re:Where's the Jon Katz review? (2, Informative)

baywulf (214371) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466797)

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

Better link (4, Insightful)

Riskable (19437) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466765)

There's a better link with all sorts of box-office statistics here [boxofficemojo.com]

I can't believe TItanic made that much!

Do they ever adjust for inflation? (4, Insightful)

Macrobat (318224) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466936)

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

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

Pretty large bug.. (3, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466766)

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....

Re:Pretty large bug.. (3, Insightful)

Duke of URL (10219) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466778)

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

Re:Pretty large bug.. (0)

gamorck (151734) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466805)

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

J

Re:Pretty large bug.. (1)

sgtsanity (568914) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466806)

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

Re:Pretty large bug.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466819)

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

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


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

Re:Pretty large bug.. (3, Insightful)

thelexx (237096) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466868)

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

LEXX

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

Re:Pretty large bug.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466889)

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

Re:Pretty large bug.. (2)

IvyMike (178408) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466914)

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

Short Lived Title (1)

bflame (21224) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466770)

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

Re:Short Lived Title (1)

pcmacman (84513) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466863)

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

Re:Short Lived Title (2)

Edmund Blackadder (559735) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466931)

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

So its like they cant lose.

Conspiracy theories (-1, Troll)

adam613 (449819) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466772)

The Spiderman movie is doing well because the MPAA said it would (through their companies advertising it). The MPAA is directly making money from it. Isn't that illegal?

And this question will almost certainly get modded Troll or Flamebait, but I can't help but wonder how much of that money is going to line the pockets of Sen. Fritz Hollins (D-Disney)?

No, it's advertising (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466850)

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.

Please explain how... (2, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466773)

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

Re:Please explain how... (0)

Niksie3 (222515) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466800)

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

Re:Please explain how... (1)

Bytenik (313942) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466837)

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

Someone is doing some extrapolation to get these numbers.

Re:Please explain how... (1)

IncohereD (513627) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466853)

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

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

Testament to the decline of Western culture (-1, Troll)

none2222 (161746) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466775)


I'm sorry, but this is just pathetic. A movie based on a comic book has the biggest 3-day gross ever? And a children's book takes second place? Meanwhile, triumphant original films that remind us of what all that is good in the art (Frailty, Baran, Jason X) are all but ignored.

I am disappointed in the American viewing public, and Slashdot in particular, for falling for studio marketing hype. The only reason any of you went to see this movie is because you heard you were supposed to. Despite the awful casting and poor special effects, you had to feed your disposable income to the corporate beast. You do realize you're financing the MPAA and RIAA, don't you? Now they have 114 million more dollars to suppress your rights. Was it really worth it? Huh?

Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (1)

Milkyman (246513) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466793)

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.

Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (1)

none2222 (161746) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466830)

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.

Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (1)

Xaoswolf (524554) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466899)

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.

Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (1)

Buzz_Litebeer (539463) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466922)

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.

Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (0)

gamorck (151734) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466795)

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

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

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

J

Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466812)

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

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

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

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

Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466835)

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

do comment on my statement, not this typo.

Thanks.

Hey, I resent that! (4, Insightful)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466821)

"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.

Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (5, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466822)

  • You do realize you're financing the MPAA and RIAA, don't you?

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

Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466825)

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

However:

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

Just a thought.

Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466829)

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

BC

Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (2)

ghostlibrary (450718) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466831)


>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 (1)

IncohereD (513627) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466838)

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.

Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (2)

none2222 (161746) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466881)


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 (1)

Osty (16825) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466842)

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

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


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

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


I think I've just been trolled.

SHUT UP SATAN! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466848)

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

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

Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (1)

NoDiggity (164346) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466866)

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.

Re:Testament to the decline of Western culture (1)

Ko5mo (518013) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466874)

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?!

Obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466780)

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

Measure of popularity, or of seats available? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466790)

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

So Nerdy, so Slashdot... (0)

SavingPrivateNawak (563767) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466802)

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

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

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

Re:So Nerdy, so Slashdot... (3, Insightful)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466839)

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?

Character! (2)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466845)

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

Um... (2)

sean-mccorkle (108563) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466898)


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:So Nerdy, so Slashdot... (3, Interesting)

GearheadX (414240) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466908)

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.

Useless measurement... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466804)

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

This number is meaningless (3, Insightful)

fahrvergnugen (228539) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466809)

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.

Re:This number is meaningless (2, Interesting)

Paradoxish (545066) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466851)

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

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

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

Still, it works for this comparison.

Re:This number is meaningless (1)

jred (111898) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466860)

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

Re:This number is meaningless (1)

rabidphilosophy (569888) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466880)

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

Re:This number is meaningless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466947)

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

Re:This number is meaningless (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466945)

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

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

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

For Kids (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466814)

*yawn* I would recommend this movie only to the teen crowd and people who are still stuck in puberty (regardless of age). I sat through it and was thinking, what am I doing here ?
What a waste of time.

I have to confess though that I never was a fan of Super-, Bat-, or Spiderman.

I didn't see it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466817)

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

Thank you.

Re:I didn't see it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466856)

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

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

Re:I didn't see it. (1)

Gunsmithy (554829) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466941)

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.

Of course! (1, Funny)

Noobie (516574) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466820)

... ,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!

w00t! (3, Insightful)

tempest303 (259600) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466828)

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. :)

New success metric needed (1)

wrinkledshirt (228541) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466858)

I'm finding it harder and harder to be impressed with the magical $100 million barrier when it costs more than $12 for a movie ticket these days. It seems like breaking that barrier was much more of a feat back in the 80's when the prices were cheaper.

Is there some way of determining how many tickets have been sold to a movie instead?

Re:New success metric needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466946)

$12 for a ticket? Wow, I pity you. I just saw the movie for $4.50. Sometimes it's nice living in a small town...

So how does piracy effect the movie industry? (0)

cavaroc (315490) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466864)

I'm sure that I'm not the only one who's noticed the movie company whining along with the record industry about piracy decreasing their sales recently.
But I've seen nothing but the exact opposite. It seems like every month another movie breaks some kind of record. Coincidence that movie piracy is on the rise? Maybe.
But seeing as though the record industry had their best year ever while Napster was at it's peak, and now the the recent study [slashdot.org] that shows piracy helps CD sales, I can't help but think that if people are allowed to have as much as they want for free, they'll always come back to the originals that they feel most closely to. So how do I explain the recent decline in record sales? Easily. Bland music in the mainstream and copy-protected CDs.

It's just a shame they'll never get it. All they want is money and they can't see how to make themselves more.

That's because (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466870)

Harry Potter sucks and has less to do with deloreans than Spider-Man. That does not change the fact that you should buy me one, though.

Newsflash (2, Insightful)

OpCode42 (253084) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466884)

Newly released movie knocks months old movie off top spot!

Ever seem me surprized?

Take a good look.

This is it.

Inflation (2, Redundant)

JAVAC THE GREAT (239850) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466890)

The reason these records keep being broken is because of inflation. Every year we should expect the previous year's record to broken by about 3%.

Nice movie, except for.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#3466891)

I enjoyed the movie, except for the obvious post-9/11 edits. I'm sure they seemed appropriate when they were added just days after the attacks (the New Yorkers' "you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us" line, the badly digitally inserted U.S. flag in the final scene), but they stick out like a sore thumb almost a year later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Hype gage (1)

rabidphilosophy (569888) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466911)

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.

Isnt it funny (3, Interesting)

Edmund Blackadder (559735) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466921)

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.

All they had to do was let Stan Lee have his way. (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 11 years ago | (#3466929)

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

Go Stan.

--Blair
"'Nuff sed."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...