 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
Brilliant film. Easily better than the first, in every respect. Easily better than even X2, which had to date been the best superhero movie (I honestly don't get the Superman-love).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
MY GOD!!!
I didn't notice this before, but this film cost $210,000,000 in production costs, plus a $50,000,000 marketing budget. This means that before the studio can even claim a dime in profit that it must gross over $520,000,000! There has been only one film that grossed over $520,000,000 in its first release... and I doubt this thing will do Titanic-like numbers. The likely audience is much smaller.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
MY GOD!!!
I didn't notice this before, but this film cost $210,000,000 in production costs, plus a $50,000,000 marketing budget. This means that before the studio can even claim a dime in profit that it must gross over $520,000,000! There has been only one film that grossed over $520,000,000 in its first release... and I doubt this thing will do Titanic-like numbers. The likely audience is much smaller. |
What about the foreign markets? Titanic made close to 1 billion worldwide.
This movie could easily break 600 Million worldwide, or a profit of 130 million.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
|
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
Titanic made $1,800,000,000 worldwide, far surpassing the #2 film ROTK.
Generally worldwide distribution is handled by a company other than the domestic distributor. In this case, it was a co-production between Columbia and Sony Pictures, with Sony getting US distribution and Columbia getting most of the international distribution (though other companies are handling the Russian and Chinese distribution). Now I don't know about how they split the costs, or whether one of the companies limited their exposure by having a cap written in the contract, but still... $260,000,000 is a lot of jack. Given theater participation, exchange rate fluctuations, taxes, etc, it is likely that this film will have to gross $800-900 million worldwide before it sees a profit for all involved.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
Ozzy:
quote:
First is the landlord's daughter. What the hell is the point of her? The scene where they eat cake is absolutely pointless. |
The point was to show that a Spiderman-less Peter was attractive to not only more girls than Peter+Spiderman, but to a different type of girl: note that the landlords daughter had more than an air of the skank about her, implying that without the responsibility of the job, Peter would fall into the wrong elements - the beautiful, virginal Kirsten would've never gone for "regular" Peter, but the skanks would. |
I disagree with that interpretation, and while I still think the scene was kinda pointless, I do appreciate Monk's interpretation.
The blond girl didn't seem to be a skank at all. She was an awkward, nerdy, girl from across the hall. I suppose I do agree though that this would be type of girl Peter could expect if not Spider-Man and suddenly confident, because the girl is a gawky outcast, just as Peter was a gawky outcast.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
SM2 had a better backdrop (it's New York was better than Batman's Gotham), |
Are you kidding? I live in NY, and Batman's Gotham felt more real than SM's NY.
quote:
a more realistic superhero story (though that is Spiderman's biggest strength), |
Realistic? Let's see...Batman--no supernatural strength or powers. Spiderman--a "radioactive" spider bites him and he has super strength. Realistic? 
quote:
and much better action scenes. |
SM2 had some good action scenes, but these aren't the be-all and end-all of a movie.
quote:
I can't imagine how you can claim better character development! Bruce Wayne doesn't hold a candle to how Peter Parker evolved. |
Let's see...how about the scene where Peter Parker completely stood aside as he watched a kid get beat up by thugs? How is this good character development? I'm not a superhero, and I would even do something about it. All he had to do was call the cops. But he did NOTHING. That made him rotten.
Bruce Wayne had a wonderful character arc. His motivation was clear, and there was no doubt about what he would do or where he was going. Parker's development wasn't bad, but could have been much better, especially considering the cheesy bit with him missing the play and the over-the-top sillyness of the James Franco plot
quote:
Hell, even Ebert calls it the best Superhero flick since Superman 1. |
And who says Ebert is a great critic? He gave Titanic 4 stars. Yeah, I take his word on films as gospel...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Are you kidding? I live in NY, and Batman's Gotham felt more real than SM's NY. |
It's a SUPERHERO story. Better backdrop doesn't mean 'realistic' because in the real world you don't you have people with mutant powers, people from Krypton, etc.
quote:
Realistic? Let's see...Batman--no supernatural strength or powers. Spiderman--a "radioactive" spider bites him and he has super strength. Realistic? |
Yeah, realistic. Bruce Wayne is millionaire businessman by day and then has enough time at night to go out and fight crime? And he can still make all of his functions? On the other hand Peter Parker is in danger of failing school, losing jobs, always tired and run down because being a superhero would seem to dig into real life unless you saw it has a part time job.
quote:
SM2 had some good action scenes, but these aren't the be-all and end-all of a movie. |
They are a major part of it.
quote:
how about the scene where Peter Parker completely stood aside as he watched a kid get beat up by thugs? How is this good character development? |
What, did you turn your brain off before you see movies? He stood aside because that was the point where he gave up being Spiderman because it was too draining, too demanding. Later on he realises that he has their great responsibilty and CANNOT step aside. The standing aside and watching the kid getting beaten up was much more important to the character developement of Spiderman than any scene was in Batman, which had very little character development at all. You said, his motivation was clear... where is the character DEVELOPMENT.
quote:
And who says Ebert is a great critic? |
A great number of people. I know I'd trust him over you.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-07-2004 10:12
|