Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Star Wars Prequels Media Movies

Episode II Surpasses $116 Million at Box Office 529

Posted by CmdrTaco from the that-kinda-cash-buys-a-lot-of-wookies dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Episode II Surpasses $116 Million at Box Office More

Episode II Surpasses $116 Million at Box Office

Comments Filter:

  • No one saw this. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by petree ( 16551 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @10:26AM (#3550330) Journal
    I bet there was no one amongst this crowd who ever thought Spider-Man would out perform -ANY- episode of Star Wars at the box office. Ever.

    I certainly didn't see it coming.
    • look again...it is a 4 day total. for 3 days, it raked in 86 million.

      • Re:No one saw this. (Score:3, Informative)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 )
        Despite that, StarWars-II was doing much brisker business on it's 4th day of release than SpiderMan was doing on it's 2nd. I would expect that StarWars-II was much closer to the theoretical maximum per screen than SpiderMan was.

        However, it will be interesting to see what the "2nd week falloff" is like...
    • I bet there was no one amongst this crowd who ever thought Spider-Man would out perform -ANY- episode of Star Wars at the box office. Ever.

      Actually, I saw it coming, and I couldn't be happier!! A friend of mine didn't believe me when I said that Spidey would beat Episode II, and so we placed a nice $50 bet on it.

      I just called him up, and he answered the phone with "Fine, you fucker, you win!". I guess he just loaded slashdot too! ;)

    • Re:No one saw this. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rnb ( 471088 )
      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?

      • Per Theater avg: (Score:2, Informative)

        by holysin ( 549880 )
        for the WEEKEND (not the first day in star wars ep 2's case)
        it was shown in 3,161 theaters, for an avg of $27,254 PT.

        For opening weekend of spiderman:
        3,615 $31,769 (yes, the difference in theaters was 454.... screens might have been 1500 but theaters wasn't THAT different it seems)

        all numbers from www.the-numbers.com

    • Re:No one saw this. (Score:2, Informative)

      by MrAl ( 21859 )
      Lucas himself saw this. He limited the number of theatres AOTC was playing in - something like 1,500 theatres less than Spider-Man. In an interview he said that he knew he wasn't going to break any records, but been-there-done-that. He just wanted it to play in theatres that were up to par technically.

      • Re:No one saw this. (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by Grab ( 126025 )
        Shame the film isn't up to par technically then, really. CGI that looks it, dialogue like, well, like the last film really. It's a shame really, since there's so much going for Star Wars. However, Lucas seems to have the sadiM touch - everything gold he touches turns to shit. The phrase "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" was made for Lucas's script-writing (or should that be "the Jawas of victory"? ;-)

        Grab.

    • Re:No one saw this. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by NerdSlayer ( 300907 )
      I did [slashdot.org].
      • I know you think you so cool cause you can refer back to some discussion you didn't take part in.

        Except that was after the fact that the numbers were in for spiderman. It's really easy to make that sort of predicition when spiderman reported the most sucessful opening weekened ever. I doesn't suprise me that some thought of this a week ago, but what about a month ago.
        • I know you think you so cool cause you can refer back to some discussion you didn't take part in.

          Ouch. You're mean.

          Except that was after the fact that the numbers were in for spiderman. It's really easy to make that sort of predicition when spiderman reported the most sucessful opening weekened ever. I doesn't suprise me that some thought of this a week ago, but what about a month ago.

          Well, personally, I can recall alot of my friends being disatisfied with the episode 1, and most of the early reviews of episode 2 were mixed as well. They seemed to indicate that episode 2 was "better" but not great.

          Also, in the end, how many years of hiatus was there between episode 6 and episode 1? I think there was a LOT more buzz the first time around.

          Finally, Lucas' insistance on "digital only" screens had me worried, though he did cave in the end.

  • Screens (Score:5, Informative)

    by lemonk ( 220326 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @10:26AM (#3550334) Homepage Journal
    It is worthwhile to mention that Spider-Man is being shown on over 1000 screens more than AOTC, etc.

    • Re:Screens (Score:5, Interesting)

      by StudMuffin ( 167171 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @10:30AM (#3550376)
      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.

      • >>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.

        Four weeks? IIRC, it's seven, which is a HUGE investment for a theater, and why fewer ones bit on it.

      • Re:Screens (Score:3, Informative)

        by cuyler ( 444961 )
        Check out the-numbers.com [the-numbers.com]. They have plenty of stats on movies. Most notably is the gross per theatre a record that is held by Spider-Man.

        Even though Spider-Man opened with more screens than AOTC it is still making more per screen than AOTC.
      • According to CNN [cnn.com], "[In Quebec, Canada,] Fox is believed to be demanding 70 percent of box office receipts for the first three weeks and insisting that 'Attack of the Clones' stay in the biggest hall for 12 weeks. The studio-theater revenue split is more commonly 70-30 in favor of the studio for only the first week, dropping to 60-40 the second week, 50-50 the third week and 40-60 by the fourth week." That's why most of Quebec's independent theater owners refused to book AotC in their theaters. If Fox's demands were similar here in the States, it may also explain why fewer theaters are showing it vs. Spider-Man... regardless of how Fox tries to spin (no pun intended) the numbers in their favor.

    • Re:Screens (Score:2, Informative)

      by peter_goathead ( 84986 )
      it isn't.
      Spider-Man: 3615 Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones: 3161

      from here [boxofficeprophets.com] [boxofficeprophets.com].
      500 less screens.

      • Re:Screens (Score:5, Informative)

        by big.ears ( 136789 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @11:24AM (#3550852) Homepage
        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.

  • Just for Yoda (Score:3, Interesting)

    by underpaid ( 554774 ) <Lpenrod@t[ ].edu ['amu' in gap]> on Monday May 20, 2002 @10:27AM (#3550345)
    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.

    • Re:Just for Yoda (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Ryan_Singer ( 114640 )
      There is an end, when he picks up his walking stick after stopping the falling pillar.

      That's when everyone in my theater (12:01 showing, first showing for that theater) erupted into applause for Yoda.
    • Thank God I didn't read anything about Ep. II prior to watching. That was one of the best surprises.

      Best Lightsaber Duel. Ever.
  • I'm just wondering if the Friday-Sunday numbers would (or could) have been higher if it didn't debut on Thursday, perhaps pushing it to the top of openings?

    BTW, saw it on Saturday and it is way better than Phantom Menace. It's worth going to see just to see Yoda with a lightsaber and commanding troops! (Pulls a Neo pose)

  • Spider-man is better? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by schwatoo ( 521485 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @10:30AM (#3550370)

    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

  • ..."Episode II" did cheat slightly by opening on a Thursday, giving it an extra day to profit that Spider-Man lacked. (OTOH, it also opened on fewer screens, although I personally find that hard to believe as my local mega-theaters gave "Spider-Man" four screens opening weekend and "Episode II" got five.)

    I personally think it will be more interesting to see how business is on the second weekend, which "Spider-Man" did extremely well on [yahoo.com], after everyone's had a chance to hear and read reviews from their friends.

    Not that I'm bedrudging "Episode II", mind you. I have yet to see it, but everyone seems suitably pleased with it. I just like to keep everything in perspective, and remember Mark Twain's warning about statistics as the third basic kind of lie.
  • And probally will, just to see Yoda in action.

    I don't know how to describe it. It was like...Kermit the Frog on crack!

  • $183M International (Score:3, Informative)

    by rosewood ( 99925 ) <<ur.tahc> <ta> <doowesor>> on Monday May 20, 2002 @10:32AM (#3550389) Homepage Journal
    Reuters [reuters.com] says:
    Ticket sales for the new "Star Wars" movie were out of this world, racking up
    $183 million at box offices worldwide in the first four days of release. According to studio estimates issued on Sunday, "Star Wars: Episode II -- Attack of the Clones," grossed an estimated $116.3 million across the United States and Canada.

  • See it again. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by techwolf ( 26278 )
    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 [theforce.net] running about "the little things" in the film.

    I think the repeat business will keep Clones going for a little bit.

    -techwolf

  • Only about 86 million when compared to Spider-Man (Score:3, Informative)

    by thaigan ( 197773 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @10:33AM (#3550410)
    Spider-Man did it in three days without a mid-night opening.

    Here's a snippet from hollywood.com: 20th Century Fox and Lucasfilm's PG rated franchise installment Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones exploded in first place with an ESTIMATED $86.15 million at 3,161 theaters ($27,254 per theater).

    After opening to $30,141,417 for Wednesday midnight screenings and Thursday, its four day cume is approximately $116.29 million. By comparison, Spider-Man's record setting opening was $114.8 million for a normal three day weekend (May 3-5).

    Star Wars' average per theater was the highest for any film playing this weekend.

    Directed by George Lucas, it stars Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen.

    "That's the third best three day regular weekend opening ever after Spider-Man's $114 million and $90 million for Harry Potter," Fox distribution president Bruce Snyder said Sunday morning.

    "It's the second fastest to $100 million. Of course, Spider-Man did it in three days and this is four. The previous record was Star Wars: Episode I in five days. It opened on a Wednesday (May 19, 1999). Its five day number was $105.659 million. So we've kind of blown past that in four days with $116.291 million on this one. It's just terrific and we're delighted."

    Looking back at Episode I -- The Phantom Menace, Snyder noted, "Its Wednesday, the opening day, was $28.5 million. That was the high water mark for the run. The next best day was $24.4 million on Saturday (of weekend one). In this case, we opened to $30.1 million, went to $25.2 million on Friday and Saturday looks like $32.25 million, so it's actually above the opening day and the opening day, remember, had the Midnight shows (from Wednesday) folded in. So this is really a spectacular performance."

    Phantom Menace wound up grossing $431.1 million in domestic theaters. Its worldwide total (domestic plus international) was $923 million. Asked about reports that Clones' Wednesday midnight shows had ticket sales of approximately $6 million, Snyder replied, "Something in that area. It depends on how they got folded into (the total for Thursday), but I think that's a fair estimate."

    Here's the breakdown of box office report [hollywood.com]
  • Could someone explain to me how it is possible that Episode I, which turned so many people off to Star Wars, grossed less than its successor? If you didn't see Episode I, what are the odds that you would see Episode II?

    I know that our theatre, in the interim, had a $2 hike in prices. I wonder if it is related to the monotonic increasing revenues.

    Anyone else find it odd that Episode II garnered more money than Episode I, though?

    • Re:Episode I (Score:3, Insightful)

      by the_2nd_coming ( 444906 )
      no, becasue Episode I was not that bad.

      arg...it was the begining of the entire saga, not a stand alone movie.....saying episode I was a bad movie is about a brilient as the folks who complained about the ending of Felloship of the rings.
      • Actually, it was. It was bad enough to skip episode II completely. And Episode I wasnt bad because it was the first of a saga; the lack of advancing storyline could be forgiven; it was bad because it was a cross between CGI-grossout and slapstick comedy, the first which leaves you with a bored 'yeah yeah, been done before', the second which maybe is humourous to a fiveyearold but most have grown out of it.

        I've given up on Lucas. He showed promise with Episodes IV and V, but then he lost his creativity and touch. The best he could do for the series would be to leave it to someone with a vision.
    • Well, I think that everyone who saw Episode 1 also saw Episode II. I think the price hike is factored in so that shouldn't affect comparing revenues.

      I think it's the fact that Episode II was shown on regular and digital screens, so for that reason alone, people (well, fanboys) were more likely to see it twice. And although I don't agree, most people seem to think II was better than I, so thus were also more likely to see it twice.
  • 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...
    • there were a few things that seemed a little too familiar...

      You're forgetting that the original Star Wars was almost entirely a direct descendant of the sci-fi serials of the 30's and 40's, and that this time-worn format was executed with perfection in the original 3 Star Wars movies. IMHO the deviation from the simplistic good-guy/bad-guy/ cliffhanger mentality and more into "big screen blockbuster" mentality marks the decline of the Star Wars movies.

    • Well, yeah. Also, the original Star Wars movie borrowed from "The Hidden Fortress" by Akira Kurosawa, 1930s radio serials, and tv westerns. Art builds on the art that comes before it. Nothing is truly original.
    • Mm.. i partially agree and partially disagree. [NOTE: SMALL SPOILERS AHEAD]

      The cloning facility.. while it did stylistically look a bit like the Matrix, this wasn't really that avoidable. The way the later books described "cloning cylenders" kind of would make it difficult to do anything that didn't kind of look matrix-ish. And you simply couldn't have come up with a realistic plot for episode 2 that didn't introduce clones being grown in a lab. But then again, the books implied that the clones were grown in the cylenders up until the point of being adults, and then some kind of memory transfer took place-- which would have meant that the image of exclusively fetuses in the clone-growing room was maybe taken from the Matrix. But perhaps this was a practice that didn't arise until the later years of the close wars; or perhaps i misread the books. I'm not sure.

      As for "the gladiatorial style execution".. Well, to be honest, you know what that reminded me of? Think about it.. desert planet, jedi and friends are chained up and about to be executed by being eaten by a huge monster in a pit while hundreds of locals watch.. personally, this reminds me more of the beginning of The Return of the Jedi than anything. As such, maybe this was just one of the stylistic nods to the later Star Wars movies-- the tracking device on fett's ship, the image of obi-wan's ship clinging to the side of an asteroid while fett wanders off oblivious, Anakin's hand trapped under a plate of metal while pieces of a battle droid are slapped in place around him-- that pervaded the movie. But then again, all of the visual references that i noticed to specific events in later movies (I mean, as opposed to stormtrooper armor and such) referred to The Empire Strikes Back, and not either of the other two in the trilogy, so maybe this isn't good analisis.

      As for the car chase scene.. yeah, i have to admit this was a little bit sketchy, if only for the moments where we get to see anakin plunge down the controls and swerve vertically through multiple lanes of traffic. That one moment, i'm pretty sure everyone in the theatre was thinking of The Fifth Element. And christopher lee, while he did a really great job, probably should not have been given that role in the interest of avoiding echoing LoTR. (You could have joined me, Obi-Wan.. but instead, you have chosen the way of.. PAIN!!!)

      I don't know enough about martial arts to comment on the fight scenes :)


  • I can't fanthom why in this age people still hang around that "Box Office" thing ?

    I mean, 40 years ago, it didn't cost an arm and a leg to purchase a movie ticket, ahhh... those are the drive-ins day.

    Today, how much does it cost for a ticket to a first-run movie ? $10 ? $ 25 ? $ 40 ?????

    Who knows ?

    I mean, the "Box Office" figure should have been retired many years ago, since it really DOES NOT REFLECT HOW MANY PEOPLE GO TO SEE THE MOVIE !

    Let's say ...

    If the Box Office figure for Episode II is 5 times the amount for Jaws (back in the '70s), do you think Episode II attracts FIVE TIME MORE PEOPLE to see it, than Jaws back in the '70s ?

    I really hope that one day we will see the figure for "Box Office" in terms of HOW MANY PEOPLE PURCHASING THE TICKETS, instead of HOW MUCH $$$$.

    • I really hope that one day we will see the figure for "Box Office" in terms of HOW MANY PEOPLE PURCHASING THE TICKETS, instead of HOW MUCH $$$$.

      Kindly turn off your caps lock, then point your browser at http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted/ [boxofficemojo.com]. It shows the adjusted all-time figures for ticket sales vs. prices at that time.

  • Why Spidey Beat the Jedis (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dwiggy ( 180327 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @10:43AM (#3550507) Homepage
    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 hit the nail on the head, in some ways AOTC and Spiderman are two different beasts. Whilst I have yet to see Spiderman I imagine its a far more self-contained film in that you don't need to read the comics to understand the plot.

      AOTC on the otherhand exists to both compliment and set the backdrop for the classic Star Wars trilogy. Personally I enjoyed AOTC not in it's own right, but the back story it provided in terms of the origins of Storm Trooper, Boba Fett, the Empire etc. It was brilliant how it all came together in the last 30 minutes.
  • We all know about apple.slashdot.org or yro.slashdot.org . These are for sections that pertain for the articles. Have you ever thought about creating one called payed-for-by-mpaa.slashdot.org ??? That's what this place is turning out to be.
  • The contendors:

    Anakin Skywalker
    Strengths: Superfast reflexes, ability to move objects with the Force, ESP like reflexes, can jump really high.
    Has a lightsaber.

    Weaknesses:
    While he's suppose to be a Jedi, he's as celibate as a Catholic Priest at a nude alter boy convention. Also, tends to get angry, then say really bad lines.

    Spider-Man:
    Strengths: Superfast reflexes, really strong, ESP like reflexes, can jump really high. Able to climb walls and shoot web from his wrists.

    Weaknesses: Can't seem to make a decent business case, hangs around stupidly while people shoot "sleeping gas" into his face. Has a cute girl hot after his body, but can't seem to make the mind-penis connection and "go for the MJ".

    Personally, I think Spider-Man could win it, but only if he got "The Rage" when Anakin threatens MJ. Seeing how Anakin has his own love muffin to worry about (unless he decides he likes women who actually have a chest), I think that we'll see Anakin just barely eek out a win.

    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.)

  • Very Impressive. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by psycht ( 233176 )
    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.
    • >>I think it was on 1500 more screens (if I remember correctly).

      You don't. It was only about 500 more and Spiderman *still* had a better per-screen average.
  • 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?
    • i read somewhere that this was a decision by lucas in an attempt to thwart piracy. obviously, that leaked cam divx of atoc came out, but i think it will work. a large part of the piracy in southeast asian countries is due simply to the fact that they have no other way to see current u.s. theatrical releases, releases that they see advertisements for on satellite tv and through other channels.
  • Natalie versus Kirsten - who will win?

  • These statistics seem meaningless... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by linuxrunner ( 225041 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @10:54AM (#3550596)
    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....

    • Adjusted for inflation, the best selling movie ever was Gone With The Wind, with Star Wars being a close second. I think Ben-Hur is among the top ten.

      Cheers!

      E

    • Re:These statistics seem meaningless... (Score:5, Informative)

      by oopy_-_ ( 32174 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @11:06AM (#3550698)
      Someone in fact has done this math:

      Top 100 Ever Adjusted [the-movie-times.com]

      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.

      • I don't see population growth as being that big a deal, since in spite of the world's increase from 3 to 5.5 billion since 1970, the united states has only gone from 210million to 270million, or numbers close to that effect. certainly not the near doubling effect the rest of the world (or at least, the third world) has seen.

        What does make a difference in america though is the continual growth of the educated middle class, and/or the general growing affluence of even the lower classes, either in the cities or in the country.

        More people can afford to go to movies more often, in spite of the increasing prices.

  • More AotC talk (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fjord ( 99230 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @10:56AM (#3550609) Homepage Journal
    One of the things I liked about AotC is that Lucas used the fact that Jar Jar is a complete idiot and turned it into an important plot device. Jar Jar's action and the fact that he was in such a position of power wouldn't have make much sense without his role the first movie.

    It's hard for me to say Spider-man was better. They were both very good in their own right and I plan on owning both of them. The love scenes in Spider-man were hands-down better, though.

  • Something to think about (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ciurana ( 2603 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @10:58AM (#3550624) Homepage Journal

    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
    • > 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.

      Frankly, neither of them is very cool (pure evil and whatnot). My vote has to go for Mr. Buffet. You've got to respect a man who:

      1. never got caught up in the tech buying spree
      2. was eating a Dilly Bar one day and said, "Damn, this is good. I'm going to buy Dairy Queen."
      3. only uses his computer for playing games (bridge) and slapping Bill Gates around (at bridge)

      If Warren had a console out, it would cost $1,000, have the best games possible, and come with ice cream. He wouldn't lower the price (like his stock price) because it would actually be worth a grand.
  • 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*
  • The majority of the plot development really didn't have anything to do with the 'Attack of the Clones". I think that "Anakin gets his groove on" would have been a more appropriate title.
  • I have had people tell me that comparing AOTC to Spiderman is like comparing apples to oranges [inno-vet.com], but I beg to differ. I think that AOTC is a more durable film, in other words, you can go see it time again and it gets better as opposed to worse or indifferent. Spiderman is pretty nifty, but I think it will flop down there with the first Batman in that it won't stand the test of time. My kids will be pining for (the non-existent) 7 through 9 episodes based on the coolness of these three episodes and the mega coolness of the first three. They will not be pining to see Spiderman 7: Spidey vs the Hulk.
  • It's interesting that when Episode I came out around the same time as the Matrix, the consensus was that the Matrix was the better movie. This time around it's Spider man and the winner is... not Star Wars.
  • Just like Vladimir and Estragon, [samuel-beckett.net] I will be waiting (for what I'm sure seems an eternity) for the video/dvd representation of this film. Why? Because I finally saw spider-man. And if AotC is not as good as spider-man, then AotC is not worth my money.

    I was really quite disappointed with spider-man. The dialogue was really bad. The FX were fun and the premise was great, but the dialogue was so contrived as to make it impossible for me to suspend my disbelief and enjoy the good parts of the movie. Which is too bad, because for once, this was a movie that didn't lack in story. It lacked in execution. It could have been a really good movie, and after having read the reviews provided here, I expected a pretty good movie. But what I got was ho-hum and it left me really disappointed.

    So if THAT is the standard which AotC fails to achieve, then I think I'll wait for it to be released in a form in which I can watch it for only $4 and if I wish to watch it again, I can (until I have to return it to the vid store).
  • My Star Wars strategy is along the lines of the quote:

    "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

    Yes, I will probably get flamed for saying this, but Episode 1 was a piss poor movie. Without the effects it would have been nothing except a cheap setup to explain Episode 2.

    So, George Lucas has lost my trust. 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).

    SO what I did this time around was to download a copy of the movie in VideoCD format off IRC. I watched it last night.

    Many will say, "How can you spoil such a great movie by watching it off a burned CD?"

    And they have a point - but I will not be fooled again. I have chosen to review the movie first, then if I deem it worthy, I will go see it. While one might think this would spoil the movie, it really doesn't. Divx/VideoCD is poor enough in quality that there is still plenty to catch the second time around, not to mention the much better audio in the theater.

    So, will I go see it in the theater? Proably yes. It was much better than the first. But shame on George Lucas for hyping the first one so much and cashing in on it because it was the first new Star Wars movie in a long time.

    • >>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).<<

      Simple solution: don't buy the popcorn, drinks or candy, and you've saved yourself $15. Have dinner before you head out to the theater, and not only will you not be hungry for popcorn, but you could have eaten something healthier to boot.

    • Why do people buy it? Particularly at those prices?

      Disclaimer: my wife and I spent $120 on dinner before going to see AotC, so popcorn would have been a little excessive. But the Copper River King Salmon was excellent.
    • 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 [fool.com], 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 [teammarketing.com]. 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.
  • Lucas gives you no incentive to indentify with any of the characters, as in the first trilogy. It just becomes CG action scenes, that itself no spur for actors to act well.
    • Umm...you mean the first and second episodes, lad. Fourth was ANH, fifth was ESB.

      Spoilers ahead, folks:

      Now, I don't know about you, but I identify with Anakin: his mother dies in his arms and he massacres men, women and children in the Tusken Raider settlement for revenge. The boy is conflicted and in massive pain. Add that to Obi-wan dismissing Anakin's dreams of his mother ("Dreams pass in time") and you have a very upset, very powerful individual. I suspect, once all is said and done, we will actually understand why Anakin would turn...we might even be sympathetic.

  • I'm just reminded what Green Goblin tells Spidey.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Brian_Ellenberger ( 308720 ) on Monday May 20, 2002 @11:33AM (#3550916)
    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
  • Just try to picture Jack Valenti rolling around naked in all those millions. That mental image has kept me out of theatres for over a year now.

    Although it did almost put me head-first into the toilet a few times....
  • I went to see Spider-Man this weekend and, after I sat down, saw that my ticket said Attack of the Clones. I asked a couple of people around me and they said the same thing. I wonder if that was just a ticket seller who didn't know what she was doing or intentional to inflate the amount of money Star Wars took in, at my theater at least. Wonder if they got some kind of bonus for Star Wars ticket sales or another incentive.

  • those who are true fans of the Star Wars Saga an Mythology, anbd those who want quick fix entertainment.

    E1 and E2 are not good movies if all you are doing is judging them on their merrits as stand alone films, but as small parts of a HUGE saga, they are perfect.

    when all is said and done, watch all 6 movies in one sitting, then judge the entire Saga as you would a single spiderman film..then tell me which is better.
  • Just a small note to warn fellow Slashdotters in Seattle. I had the disappointing experience of getting up at 6:30 a.m. on Sunday to catch the 8:00 digital showing of Episode II downtown at the Cinerama, only to find that it wasn't digital. Funny, because it's on the list [starwars.com]. Don't waste your money on this theatre expecting digital. (Sad that we don't have any other digital theatres here.)

    Cheers!
  • For obvious reasons, counting the amount of money a movie makes is pointless -- a movie that makes $200 million today might have been seen by fewer people than a movie that came out 50 years ago and made $50 million, because ticket prices were so much lower then. So a better metric would be to count the number of tickets sold.

    Oops! There's still a problem: There are more people and more theaters than there used to be! So simply by virtue of that fact, a movie might be seen by more people today than 50 years ago, even if the old movie is, by all other accounts, "better". Another alternative -- to count the number of people who saw movies versus the number of people who experienced other forms of entertainment -- is infeasible because counting that many people is impossible to do accurately.

    Probably counting the number of tickets sold, versus the total population (taken from gubmint estimates) is probably the best metric.

Slashdot Top Deals

8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss

Close