Harry who? Spiderman swings into the office with a recordbreaking $114 million

[Atlantean]

Thats right it broke all previous box office records. What do you think about them apples?

 

[Spooner]

still have to go see this....... been hearing great things

 

[LH]

The actual numbers havent been released for Sunday. $114million was an estimate Sony gave Sunday morning. Spidey did $41.5million Friday and $43.7million Saturday. IMHO $29million for Sunday low. When the final numbers for Sunday are released it could be around $120million

 

[syzygy]

if you're expectationsn are low you wont be disappointed. still thought sucked, though

at times he looks not believable walking around in those funky pajamas. the few ok moments
are when spidey is in close-up. of all the comic book adaptions this one is the weakest, by far,
probably because the character's origins and behavior are loony.

 

[mrCide]

<< if you're expectationsn are low you wont be disappointed. still thought sucked, though

at times he looks not believable walking around in those funky pajamas. the few ok moments
are when spidey is in close-up. of all the comic book adaptions this one is the weakest, by far,
probably because the character's origins and behavior are loony. >>



i loved it, infact, i think YOU suck..

 

[PlatinumGold]

breaking 100 mill in three days is just RIDICULOUS tho.

 

[StageLeft]

<< if you're expectationsn are low you wont be disappointed. still thought sucked, though

at times he looks not believable walking around in those funky pajamas. the few ok moments
are when spidey is in close-up. of all the comic book adaptions this one is the weakest, by far,
probably because the character's origins and behavior are loony. >>

Blah. The vast majority of people who are going to this movie are not comic book nerds who live and breath comic books and take personal offense at anything that could possibly hurt the godlike image of spiderman in their minds.

Taken by itself this is a good entertaining movie.

 

[royaldank]

<< breaking 100 mill in three days is just RIDICULOUS tho. >>



It did well, no one will argue that. But, to use stats like how much money it made in the first X days or overall is not all that accurate. Ticket prices are higher than ever now and who knows how many screens the movie is playing on.

Do they release number of tickets sold? I think that would be a much better stat. Or, tickets per screen.

 

[AndyTriboletti]

<< What do you think about them apples? >>


http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted/

 

[pulse8]

<< to use stats like how much money it made in the first X days or overall is not all that accurate >>

If it weren't accurate, they wouldn't use it.


<< who knows how many screens the movie is playing on >>

They know exactly how many screens it's playing on. It was around 3500. I don't recall the exact amount.


<< Do they release number of tickets sold? I think that would be a much better stat. Or, tickets per screen. >>

The studios don't really care exactly how many people saw the movie. They only care how much the movie made for the weekend.

I don't think you should be suggesting new ideas to something you know nothing about.

 

[royaldank]

I understand that the numbers are accurate and they know how many screens. But, what I'm saying, is that saying it broke all these records is pretty pointless. Sure, it made the most money, but you had to pay more to see this movie than any other movie before.

I was suggesting tickets per screen as a way to see how full the theaters were in relation to other movies. Then, you could gauge the opening success.

I could really care less whether it made one dollar or 120 million. I just don't get why people throw these numbers around like it's some big thing. It made more...well, it costs more to make and people had to pay more to see it. No wonder it broke previous records.

No disrespect here.

 

[Uclagamer_99]

no way man...this is the weakest comic book adaptation? what else is out there? this movie was better than x-men and arguably better than the first Batman, other than those two other movies i don't see anything else doing their comic book counterparts any justice.

why did you not like the movie? because spiderman didn't have web cartridges or he was bitten by a genetically enhanced spider instead of a radioactive one? hehe

i thought the special effects were really well done and in no way looked fake or cheesy a majority of the time but to each his own

 

[PlatinumGold]

<< << breaking 100 mill in three days is just RIDICULOUS tho. >>



It did well, no one will argue that. But, to use stats like how much money it made in the first X days or overall is not all that accurate. Ticket prices are higher than ever now and who knows how many screens the movie is playing on.

Do they release number of tickets sold? I think that would be a much better stat. Or, tickets per screen.
>>



It's still ridiculous. if what happened with spiderman isn't an extreme event then how come it's the first time in the last 10 years for it to happen? inflation has been relatively stable over the last 10 years so that doesn't explain it. It is a true phenomenon. to quote pulse8

<< I don't think you should be suggesting new ideas to something you know nothing about. >>

 

[StinkyMeat]

Along the lins of royaldank's post, isn't this just because the cost of movies is going up? Or am I wrong?

 

[SaltBoy]

salon.com says it made about $32,000 per screen. That's a dang good sign that just about every (if not every) screening was sold out...

 

[pulse8]

<< I could really care less whether it made one dollar or 120 million. I just don't get why people throw these numbers around like it's some big thing. It made more...well, it costs more to make and people had to pay more to see it. No wonder it broke previous records. >>

The previous winner was Harry Potter. Do you really think ticket prices have come up that much (or at all) since Harry Potter?



<< Along the lins of royaldank's post, isn't this just because the cost of movies is going up? Or am I wrong? >>

It has NOTHING to do with the cost of the movies going up. Ticket prices may be where they are now because of movie costs, as well as inflation, but theaters don't charge different prices depending on how much the movie cost to make.

 

[royaldank]

<<

<< << breaking 100 mill in three days is just RIDICULOUS tho. >>



It did well, no one will argue that. But, to use stats like how much money it made in the first X days or overall is not all that accurate. Ticket prices are higher than ever now and who knows how many screens the movie is playing on.

Do they release number of tickets sold? I think that would be a much better stat. Or, tickets per screen.
>>



It's still ridiculous. if what happened with spiderman isn't an extreme event then how come it's the first time in the last 10 years for it to happen? inflation has been relatively stable over the last 10 years so that doesn't explain it. It is a true phenomenon. to quote pulse8

<< I don't think you should be suggesting new ideas to something you know nothing about. >>

>>



Yeah, whatever. Movie prices have risen five times over the last ten years. Just two months ago, movie prices were raised again at half the theaters in town. Inflation may be stable but entertaiment prices have risen significantly over the last ten years in America.

I never said it wasn't a big deal (in fact, I did say that it did well), but put things in perspective.

And besides, I was never arguing anything here. I was just pointing out that while it did break all records, a year from now, when ticket prices rise again, it will be beaten (if SW doesn't do it first). So, my point is just about every year from here on out will produce a new movie that breaks all these records b/c ticket prices keep going up. I'm not raining on anyone's parade. Nor am I saying anything about Spidey. I want to see it myself.

 

[SCSIfreek]

they should give us the number of tickets sold instead of the dollar amount they made. Just think for a second, movie tickets had gone up to $9.50/person. Back in the 80's tickets were less than $5.00/person.


--Scsi

 

[Parrotheader]

<< << to use stats like how much money it made in the first X days or overall is not all that accurate >> >>




<< <If it weren't accurate, they wouldn't use it. >>



Oh please. To say there hasn't been inflation in movie prices over the last decade is ridiculous. Just because inflation in the overall economy hasn't been as bad over the last decade doesn't mean that inflation in ticket prices hasn't occured. If anything, slower overall inflation has created more disposable income which in turn increases demand at the theaters, which in turn increases ticket prices (that's a long extrapolation, but you get the idea.)

Using gross income at the box office as a metric instead of tickets sold is like using "hits" as a metric (instead of "unique visitors") for monitoring a site's traffic activity. Both are EXTREMELY subjective and vary widely according to other variables. The alternatives are not without faults, but they give a much more real world gauge of how many actual people saw a film. I think the primary reason they don't use "tickets sold" instead of gross is because ~15,000,000 people doesn't sound as impressive as ~120,000,000 million dollars.

Isn't it obvious yet how fast we're breaking "box office" records?? These "records" are falling by the wayside in terms of months now which ought to set off some red flags to some people. Higher ticket prices and not to mention WAY more movie theaters than there used to be are the primary reasons for this occurence. If all we're looking at is box office gross suddenly a film like Rush Hour 2 seems like a cultural icon while classics like Jaws and The Godfather suddenly look like obscure art films seen by only a few dozen people.

 

[Viper GTS]

You can't compare dollar for dollar values from a decade ago to today, you must adjust them to a reference value to show anything.

That having been said, Spiderman appears to be doing quite well - And for good reason.

Viper GTS

 

[TAsunder]

For me, movies have gone up exactly $1 in the past 10 years. So, let's assume that the average movie price is $10, and has gone up $2. So suppose, for example, spiderman makes $400 million total in the next few months. Divide that by 10, you get 40 million viewers. Multiply it by 8 and you still have $320 million. It's not just the rising ticket costs... it's marketting and other factors.

Regarding harry potter, don't forget that kids get into movies cheaper than adults... so maybe more adults saw spiderman.

Regarding the actual quality of the movie, I thought it was equal to the first batman. In other words, very good. True, some of the special effects looked CGI-ish, and many did not involve / enthrall. But the story's execution was executed superbly. Just enough comic book feel to make it seem like a comic book story, but not so overly cheesy to make it seem stupid.

The best comic book adaptation, IMO, is HBO's animated adaptation of spawn. Not including japanese manga adaptations of course.

 

[ttn1]

But you all know it's this Kazaa/ Morpheus crap that is eating into Hollywood's profits right????

On a more serious note, I think the production and directing in this film totally sucked. The fight scenes were great IMHO and I thought all the so-called CG stuff was great as well. I simply hated the long drawn out sappy scenes with peter and MJ. And then dropping the ball with the whole web shooting out of his arms.

Still a movie worth the price of a ticket if only for the special effects.

 

[lllJRlll]

<<

<<

<<
Yeah, whatever. Movie prices have risen five times over the last ten years. Just two months ago, movie prices were raised again at half the theaters in town. Inflation may be stable but entertaiment prices have risen significantly over the last ten years in America.

I never said it wasn't a big deal (in fact, I did say that it did well), but put things in perspective.

And besides, I was never arguing anything here. I was just pointing out that while it did break all records, a year from now, when ticket prices rise again, it will be beaten (if SW doesn't do it first). So, my point is just about every year from here on out will produce a new movie that breaks all these records b/c ticket prices keep going up. I'm not raining on anyone's parade. Nor am I saying anything about Spidey. I want to see it myself. >>








AOTC will not break 100 million in it's first weekend (Anything can happen but I just don't think it will).Phantom Menace in 1999 made 64 million on 3000 screens

 

[pulse8]

<< The alternatives are not without faults, but they give a much more real world gauge of how many actual people saw a film >>

The studios don't care how many people saw the film. They care about how much money they made this past weekend. These numbers aren't used to tell how many people saw the film, but how much money it made and that's why they use dollar amounts.

 

[Parrotheader]

<< The studios don't care how many people saw the film. They care about how much money they made this past weekend. These numbers aren't used to tell how many people saw the film, but how much money it made and that's why they use dollar amounts. >>

I KNOW what the studios care about. They give the media these numbers who in turn just regurgitate it out to us without even thinking. What I'm saying is when you use dollar values you really have no idea how many people actually saw a movie. A lot of people see 115 million dollars and assume that means 115 million people (which is why you'll see threads like the other Spidey thread "I must be the only one who HASN'T seen Spider Man"; yeah, you and about 350,000,000 other people.) Like I said originally, I think the main reason they use gross instead of ticket sales is because it makes things look better and can help create a feeding frenzy because then people will see the number and think 'well everybody else is doing it, I must be missing out.'