So AOTC ONLY Made 300 Mil This Past Summer, While Spider-Man Made 400 Mil....

Yes, and I did not like the Green Goblin, he looked like a flunkey. To me the green Goblin is green, with a purple hat, and small kind of like a goblin, he is also quite scary. Not a tall, paleskinned guy in silver armour on a flying electric surfboard.
"I now present to you The Green Goblin! "(only he is over 6ft tall - not much of a Goblin).

But thats another story.

And thats the difference you see between Spiderman and Star Wars. If George Lucas had done Spiderman he would've animated him to - like he did with Yoda.

 

`If George Lucas really, truly went for an artistic masterpiece instead of a throwaway commercial hit, I think we would all know it, and some of us would be thrilled, and some of us would be horrified. Lucas will never make another movie as universally beloved as ANH, nor should he try. Star Wars was conceived as a space opera with mass appeal.'

What's the difference between the two things I just highlighted?

 

I understand why inflation is brought up on this topic but people also have to remember that movies are not in the cinemas as long as they used to be. It's been balanced. Its the exact reason why a movie making 100 million is still considered a hit since the early 80's. movies had to be kept in theaters for months just to make the money they do now. Had the movies stayed in as long as they used to...then we're looking at a high amount of money per movie. it would change to 200 million being the breakline for hit. I remember Batman and Indiana Jones were out for MONTHS. PLUS there's also a lot more movies released in a week span as well....so remember that inflation isn't entirely accurate...

 

so remember that inflation isn't entirely accurate...

That's exactly what I've been trying to say. But since the inflation adjusted numbers scoot the prequels down the list, bashers love using this argument, careful to avoid mentioning just how inaccurate the figures really are.

But as has been pointed out, films like Harry Potter, Spiderman, and The Fellowship Of The Ring don't fare too well in an adjusted list either, so the obvious conclussion has to be that not only is Star Wars less popular than it used to be but movies in general are less popular overall.

So adjusted figures or not, the fact remains, Star Wars is performing comparably to other recent popular films and is holding its own in the face of some very stiff competition. We fans should be proud.

 

sdj wrote: "So while SM did fairly well [domestically?] AotC beat SM in nearly every other country."

I guess I'm confused about the fact that Spider-Man has made almost $400 million outside the U.S., while AOTC has made about $75 million less abroad.

AOTC made a higher percentage of its total gross abroad, but Spider-Man still beat out AOTC in most foreign countries.

Durwood wrote: "bashers love using this argument, careful to avoid mentioning just how inaccurate the figures really are."

You don't know how inaccurate the adjusted figures are. They could be highly accurate. They could be highly inaccurate, but overall they make an honest effort to reflect the changing value of the dollar and are not a bad proxy for the actual number of tickets sold.

 

Well, Jabba, I hate to do this to you, seeing how desperately you cling to your futile argument, but you just don't seem to get it. A site called Box Office Report has an inflation adjusted list that carries this disclaimer:

Please also keep in mind that this list, like any other inflation adjusted list, can never really be 100% accurate for a number of various reasons.

Even the site in question admits its own inaccuracy! So while the adjusted numbers do provide a clever lesson in inflation economics, the inaccurate results really can't be used as proof of anything.

Sorry to so completely burst your bubble, but you're the one who kept pushing the issue.

Now the question remains, considering that other current popular films performed on par with Attack Of The Clones, do you consider them box office failures as well?

 

Look at yourself, Durwood, you just quoted a disclaimer that acknowledged adjusted lists could not be 100% accurate as proof that they are wildly inaccurate.

Of course, Harry Potter made $300 million more than AOTC wordlwide, and FOTR made $200 million more than AOTC worldwide.

But in terms of U.S. gross, yes, those movies fall along the same adjusted spectrum as AOTC.

But that's irrelevant. My only point, the one that no one has been able to refute, is that AOTC is the least popular, least watched Star Wars film ever made. It sold the least tickets, and its drop from TPM is the biggest percentage loss of the Star Wars audience since ANH - ESB. ESB, ROTJ and even TPM held onto the Star Wars audience fairly well, with each successive film seeing modest declines in tickets sold.

What you're going to see with LOTR though, is almost no erosion in the audience from the first to second film. In fact, the audience may grow. It is unlike any other movie ever made in that it really is part of a saga, part of a single epic film (unlike Star Wars which really doesn't hold together well enough to be considered a single cinematic work.

 

I know in this Nerd Kingdom, LOTR is praised through and through, but out in the real world the movie holds even less merit than Star Wars.

I saw LOTR once. That's it. 3 hour movies don't bear repeat viewings that well. Every other person I know saw it once. No one was that enthused about it. Everyone said it was too long and boring. I didn't hear anyone clamoring to see the rest of the story.

But after AOTC came out, everyone I know was raving about it, even my little brothers who were not lifelong fans like I was. Everyone is bugging me to hook them up with advanced copies of the movie, since they are stuck behind firewalls at school.

And everyone is looking foward to 2005 to see the end of the saga.

My point. Know one I know wants to walk around playing hobbits and elves. But everybody wouldn't mind getting their hands on a lightsaber and kicking some butt.

So, In my little part of the world, Jedis beat hobbits any day of the week.

 

Abstract beat me to it. The last time I saw AOTC at the dollar shows, these two little boys were running all over the lobby, pretending to be waving lightsabers. You can't manufacture that sort of thing.

And as for me personally, I more and more find Tolkien's (and his good buddy CS Lewis') worldviews somewhat nasuating.

I don't really get into this arguments anymore - mainly because I find them quite boring and repetitive, but all I heard for three years from bashers was how that TPM's massive box office haul meant absolutely nothing.

Funny how when AOTC doesn't do as well as expected, box office suddenly proves something again.

 

Jabba and Abstract: You both have faults with your arguments. Actually, one seems to try and contradict the other.

Jabba:I am still unclear as to whether or not you think AOTC lackluster quality as a picture was what caused negative word of mouth or if it was just that the Star Wars fanbase/desire for a SW film diminished after TPM.

Abstract: Take in mind what you are saying. LOTR:FOTR made more money in ticket sales than AOTC. You say the public was more enthused by AOTC than FOTR, however, FOTR was an accomplishment in and of itself. FOTR was a three hour fantasy movie with a cliffhanger ending. In many cases, that alone is enough to put it out of the running for anything serious. What did it get? $312 million in domestic ticket sales and 13 Oscar nominations. Furthermore, FOTR did not have that much of a marketing campaign compared to SW. Of course SW did not need much of a campaign, but the general populace is nowhere near as familiar with LOTR material as they are SW. SW's name alone garnered more attention than the whole campaign of LOTR before its release.
Bottomline: No film can make $300 million+ on negative word of mouth, which you claim was the majority for FOTR. Also, $300 million is a lot by today's standards and with adjusted inflation I would guess equates to about $200 million ten years ago, which was considered a great amount by that time period as well. Both FOTR and AOTC deserve kudos for doing as well as they did.
The main difference in the two as to why kids wanted to play Jedi and not Hobbits is that FOTR really works better with more mature audiences. SW is, first and foremost, for the young and young at heart. It has toys and stuff to fall back on. FOTR made its mark on pretty much being a film alone.
That said, I LOVED SPIDEY!!!! It really captured the essence of watching a fun popcorn movie while still delivering in the area of dialogue and acting. Something FOTR did way better than AOTC. But you know what? Aside from ESB, I have never seen a SW film shine in that department. You know what else? I intend to have the DVDs of all three of the movies I mentioned sitting on my shelf this fall. They are each outstanding in their own way and met with desreved success IMO. Peace out!

 

My only point, the one that no one has been able to refute, is that AOTC is the least popular, least watched Star Wars film ever made. It sold the least tickets, and its drop from TPM is the biggest percentage loss of the Star Wars audience since ANH - ESB.

I think the biggest factor in reduced sales has nothing to do with Attack Of The Clones at all but the constant and bitter three year attack on the Star Wars franchise after The Phantom Menace. That is a huge factor that can not be ignored, so even if your allegation is correct, you can't rule out the fact that many critics of the series produced an unfair bias against Star Wars in the mind of the public who then went on to write off Attack Of The Clones without even giving it a chance.

So if anything, it's the media's anti-Star Wars campaign that played the biggest role in Clones' reduced ticket sales and not the quality of the movie in question.

And seeing as you're one of those folks who actively and bitterly campaigned against Star Wars for the past three years, you should feel very proud. It's your selfish attitude and the attitude of others like you and not the prequels that are killing this franchise. Good job.

Star Wars...really doesn't hold together well enough to be considered a single cinematic work.

This is clearly a matter of opinion.

And I'm sure you're right about The Two Towers, but there's also the fact that the media hasn't been working tirelessly to spread bad blood between the fans and the films.

 

I wasn't trying to argue with Jabbadabbado's supreme understanding of box office figures. But his argument has already been upended several times over.

But as far as my opinion goes, here's what I think. Box office has no relevence anymore. DVD is the true measuring stick by which a movie's popularity should be judged. A lot of movies nowadays are making a lot more money in their DVD releases then they ever did in the theater. This is the true indicator for the fat, lazy agoraphobic American. Will he buy or rent the movie to watch in the comfort of his own home? The TPM DVD proved that Star Wars is still a viable commodity in the world of entertainment. No doubt the AOTC will prove this too. And when the trilogy is released somepoint in the near future, Star Wars will once again prove it is the pinnacle of American film entertainment.

Just a sidenote to everyone here who thinks Lucas runs a really greedy empire. How many editions of LOTR have come out in the last year alone? And how many will there be of Spider-Man in a couple of months? The AOTC DVD release is far less absurd in comparison.

Darth Blasphempous,

I'm sorry, but if you check how much more money has been spent of LOTR and Spiderman marketing in the last year, you will see that they both outstrip AOTC's by quite a lot.

 

I know y'all are having a deep convo, but I had to put in my two pieces real quick. I thought it was funny when I read "Star Wars made ONLY 300 million." I wish I could say I made ONLY 300 million. Sheesh.

And the thing about critics, they are always like that. It seems to me that they never like a movie. Then again, they have to say something bad. CONTROVERSY sells and I think that is the big thing to remember when reading a critics review.

 

Did you guys hear what happened to Roger Ebert and some other critics at the Toronto Film Festival? Here's the story from Showbizdata.com:

Several top U.S. critics attending the Toronto International Film Festival have expressed outrage after being barred from attending screenings when theaters filled too quickly, the Toronto Star reported today (Tuesday). The newspaper said that at one theater on Saturday, Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert "lost his temper and yelled at festival staff" when he was refused admittance to a screening, prompting one person who was ahead of him in line to yell back, "Why don't you go back to America and start your own film festival?"

I wish this would happen more often.

 

What I'm reading in this topic is that Star Wars is dying down and its popularity destroyed by the prequels, so "just look at the numbers". As I have said earlier, inflation DOES not prove much as movies aren't even NEAR the time movies used to be in the cinemas. Movies aren't re-released as much and movies are making it to video/DVD a LOT LOT faster than before. In other words, the whole thing is balanced. From when I was growing up, the only talk of star wars (pardon the obvious generalization) was the guys in the corner at school. I never heard much about star wars, but ever since the prequels came out the Star Wars fandom and popularity has grown again. For probably a decade, the fan base stayed essentially at a certain level. But now I'm hearing A LOT more talk of Star Wars whether bad or good. The point is, it has become big again. And don't forget who loves these prequels that are supposedly "declining" the series. The kids and teenagers, and you can't lie about that. Do you realize that's how it's always been? I don't recall seeing a 50 year old man running to the theaters to see the new star wars, nor swing a lightsaber and making a big deal out of star wars, maybe cuz when he was 30, star wars was good, cool, but it was juss a movie. It's the same for the generation today, not including the fans/purists. I find bringing in this inflation defense is a cheap cop out to making people agree with a point, honestly. I'll admit that Star Wars had lost some of its fans and MOSTLY its purists. *yes there is a difference between a purist and a fan* But in place of those, you have a whole new band of fans and faithfuls. If the movie sucked to you, that's cool, but to say the world thought it sucked, well I guess thats why it's still making a good per screen average for a movie that's been released since may

 

And seeing as you're one of those folks who actively and bitterly campaigned against Star Wars for the past three years, you should feel very proud. It's your selfish attitude and the attitude of others like you and not the prequels that are killing this franchise. Good job.

*clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap*

Bravo, Durwood!

 

"Why don't you go back to America and start your own film festival?"

Roger Ebert has started his own film festival in America, already several years old, the "Overlooked Film Festival" in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.

 

I heard that's wildly popular amongst the fields of cows in that one-stoplight town.

 

Roger Ebert is a great, great guy. He replies to everything you send him; is very courteous and funny and is a true cinema lover.

He is also the most prominent film critic in the US, which automatically makes him one of the most prominent in the world. It is a messed up state of affairs when festivals do not accommodate automatically for such critics as it is they who will be creating a wealth of publicity for films which will be vying for the Oscar in six months.

 

Maybe they didn't have the proper seating in Canadia.

I mean, you can accomodate him for one chair, but two? Come on, you let one man bend the rules, the whole festival goes to chaos.

 

Abstract: Yes, Spidey and LOTR had huge marketing campaigns combined. However, I doubt LOTR's was a large as either Spidey or AOTC.

Bottomline: FOTR made more money than AOTC on the grounds of being pretty much a film. It didn't have toys flying off the shelves or deals with Taco Bell, just some glasses at Burger King. FOTR's material was marketed to a very limited amount of people, the kind who would sit down and watch documentaries at Barnes and Noble or bookstores and such. In short anyone who witnessed all of FOTR's campaign were, well, "geeks." However, FOTR made more at the B.O. than AOTC from being marketed to "geeks."(I use that term lightly.) But I do know that it could not have made what it did in America and worldwide from "geeks" alone. It went through word of mouth. Also, FOTR did not have an establishment in American pop culture the way Star Wars and Spidey did. Ask anyone on the street who a Skywalker is or who Spider-Man is and they would know. Ask about Frodo Baggins they would look at you as if you were a hobbit yourself.
So: does SW have more marketability and recognition? Duh! Of course it does! What I am saying is that SW could not capitalize on being a film alone to carry itself like FOTR did for the most part. Granted, Spidey used a marketing blitz to get a $114 miilion opening. However, it was through word of mouth that it grossed an additional $290 million. Marketing will open you and maintain for a week or two, but after that a movie needs to work as a movie.

 

"I mean, you can accomodate him for one chair, but two? Come on, you let one man bend the rules, the whole festival goes to chaos."


hehehe.........a funny cheap shot but Ebert deserves it.

 

Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert "lost his temper and yelled at festival staff" when he was refused admittance to a screening, prompting one person who was ahead of him in line to yell back, "Why don't you go back to America and start your own film festival?"

Would the world really be so bad off if every critic was fired tomorrow?

 

If all movie critics were fired tomorrow, it would certainly be a step in making the world a less cynical and more positive place.