Spider-man breaks harry pothead's weekend record :)

[ThaGrandCow]

<< was friggin great and can't wait until the sequel.

****WARNING******SPOILER************
At the end of the movie, the Green Goblin's son is going to turn into a villian (my guess), in the comic book who is the GG's son? I'm hoping they say screw who he really is and make him Venom.

**********End Spoiler************* >>

Why should they? Eddie Brock is already in the Spider-Man universe. They even mentioned him in the movie. Harry doesn't have to become the new GG yet... he can wait a movie or two before he "finds" his dad's enhancing drug and glider and secret. They also won't be stupid enough to put the same villian in 2 movies in a row. That would lose appeal to the masses (but they'd still see it).



<< Anyone else find it strange that hardly anyone has a bad word to say about Spiderman? >>

Not at all. Sam Raimi is an incredible director who is a definite fan of the Spider-Man comics. He knows the story, and he had a vision from the beginning to make it a serious, thought provoking movie. Basically what you had was the right director, with the perfect story, at the right time (we can finally do lifelike CG in a movie that doesn't look like crap), along with near perfect actors who knew their characters, and also a perfect timing. This is the kind of movie we needed to start the Summer blockbuster season with, and one of probably 3 movies I've seen in my life so far that I'll be paying multiple times to see in the theatre.



<< Now that is good news because it means more sequels (which could turn out to be bad news if they turn into Batman-like sequels). >>

Sam Raimi knows Spider-Man, and I'm sure after this movie breaks the $300 million mark he'll have so much cash flowing in that he'll start using it for toilet paper and firewood. I have no doubt that he'll be tapped for a second and possibly a third sequel, and with a movie that popular he'll be able to negotiate for a backend deal where he makes a percentage of the total sales (instead of just a flat $20 million). He knows where he's going with the movie series and that is definitely not into the comedy area. Tim Burton did the first and second Batman movies, when the series was serious. Joel Schumacher was brought in for the 3rd and fourth. The Batman franchise was popular, but it was believed that by playing to the masses and making it campy they could being in more money. Not so with Spider-Man. This movie has prettymuch entrenched the series in a serious setting, which is good. I don't like campy superheroes and with X-Men out and now Spider-Man I'm glad that the comic movies are now in good territory.

BTW: the Hulk will rock in 2003

 

[zeruty]

the movie was great... except for one scene of cgi I didnt like...
(not a spoiler or anything cause it's on the commercials&trailer)
when he was at lunch and he spun around to catch mary jane, that was unrealistic and looked bad

 

[toant103]

wow, that's a lot of money.

 

[lllJRlll]

<<

<< Because it's one of the oldest and most popular comic book character of all time. >>


Yeah, well where have all these fans been the past few years while Marvel was losing money like crazy? >>





What does Spiderman have to do with Marvel almost going under? It's just one character out of 100's in the Marvel universe.

 

[NFS4]

<< I disagree. While it wasn't horrible, the disjointed unrealistic looking CGI really turned me off. Roger Ebert's review summed it up my feelings exactly. >>


You're one of the VERY few who thinks that.

Roger Ebert is a jackass. I don't see how Roeper can put up with him.


<< Tim Burton did the first and second Batman movies, when the series was serious. Joel Schumacher was brought in for the 3rd and fourth. The Batman franchise was popular, but it was believed that by playing to the masses and making it campy they could being in more money. Not so with Spider-Man. This movie has prettymuch entrenched the series in a serious setting, which is good. >>


The original Batman (1989) is STILL my favorite movie of all time. Perfect combination of good acting, great script, and perfectly timed humour. I mean, who else could have played such a sick f*&k like Jack Nicholson???

Dafoe is right up there with Nicholson as far as comic book --> on screen villans.

 

[PlatinumGold]

I loved the film. it will continue to set records. i'm not sure how much ATOC is gonna hurt it.

my only gripe really is that kirsten dunst just doesn't do it for me.

 

[SSP]

Hey, Did you guys get a free Spiderman comic book after the movie? I got one of Spiderman and Xmen special. Cool.

 

[Parrotheader]

I haven't seen it yet, but I DEFINITELY plan on going based off what all my friends have said. Some of the CGI in the previews did look a little too overdone IMO, but I doubt it will be that bothersome.

<SOAPBOX>
However, am I the ONLY one who's getting EXTREMELY sick of using a movie's gross income as THE measuring stick of a film's success and popularity?? I don't say that as a LOTR fan (haven't even seen it yet; didn't care much for Tolkien's books) or a Star Wars fan (I'll probably wait a couple weeks on that one too since I don't like being packed in like sardines.) It's just that boxoffice sales is one of the most fuzzy figures that can be used as a metric given the extreme spike and variation in ticket costs over the last decade. It's like using "hits" instead of "unique visitors" as a way to talk about a site's traffic. I wish people would start using a somewhat more 'accurate' number like 'number of tickets sold' instead since that at least tells me roughly how many people saw it instead of knowing that some people paid $10 to see it while others may have paid only $5. I guess they think if they only talk about 15 million people instead of 115 million dollars that it won't sound as impressive.

You think at some point, it would dawn on people. "Wow, another movie gross record was broken again. That's the 6th time in the last 6 months. I can't believe Rush Hour 3 is more popular than Jaws!!" Ummm, yeah.

</SOAPBOX>

 

[Lunarcade]

<< my only gripe really is that kirsten dunst just doesn't do it for me. >>



GASP! You madman, Dunst is hot!

I was very pleasantly surprised by this movie, I didn't think the trailers showed much, and I'm glad they didn't. Not a crappy children's movie trying to please everyone, just a good solid film. I'm actually considering paying to see it again, something that I almost NEVER do!