Thursday Box Office

[tonytr87]

This reminds me of when Howard Stern was at it's peak and they were discussing fans and haters of the show, it went something like"Guy 1- Fans of the show listened to it for an average of 2 hoursGuy 2- and how long did people who despise Howard Stern listen?Guy 1- 3 hours"It seems people who really dislike something take far more interest in it than people who really like it, which just seems weird to me since if I actively dislike a movie I might glance at numbers and a few comments to see what the general opinion is, but I don't make countless post of "it's a bomb" or "legs are weak", etc.

Those who dislike ASM want it to fail because if it's deemed a success, it'll just encourage even more unorginality in Hollywood, which is the last thing the industry needs. Edited July 13, 2012 by tonytr87

[Sims]

Or they're afraid TASM might actually make money the weekend TDKR opens and don't want any $$$ taken from it. God---oops, sorry, NOLAN forbid TASM has even a nano sized effect on TDKR. :P :P

That's like saying a flea is going to slow down a cheetah. Sure, when you get to the level of quantum physics, there will be some impact, but the visible outcome is that the flea is dead and the cheetah couldn't care less.

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

That's like saying a flea is going to slow down a cheetah. Sure, when you get to the level of quantum physics, there will be some impact, but the visible outcome is that the flea is dead and the cheetah couldn't care less.

That's what I'm saying...they are worried about the flea having even an "invisible" effect on the cheetah. Why not concentrate on what TDKR will do rather than on what TASM "isn't doing", it's not worth the trouble....is it? Yet, every day there's even a hair of a drop, the vultures gather as though the world depended on TASM failing.

[John Marston]

Those who dislike ASM want it to fail because if it's deemed a success, it'll just encourage even more unorginality in Hollywood, which is the last thing the industry needs.

yeah, because ASM is completely to blame for that isn't it? Remake type movies are completely a new thing aren't they?

[ZattMurdock]

Or they're afraid TASM might actually make money the weekend TDKR opens and don't want any $$$ taken from it. God---oops, sorry, NOLAN forbid TASM has even a nano sized effect on TDKR. :P

Apparently 190m OW won't be enough.

Bullseye.

[druv10]

Those who dislike ASM want it to fail because if it's deemed a success, it'll just encourage even more unorginality in Hollywood, which is the last thing the industry needs.

It's a noble thought but misguided. I didn't see, the near this level of hate for POTC4 and that went on to make over 1B WW. Any reason?

[John Marston]

It's a noble thought but misguided. I didn't see, the near this level of hate for POTC4 and that went on to make over 1B WW. Any reason?

it's not noble, Hollywood is not going to immediately start funding more "original" films just because this underperforms. That's not how it works

[ZattMurdock]

Those who dislike ASM want it to fail because if it's deemed a success, it'll just encourage even more unorginality in Hollywood, which is the last thing the industry needs.

Suuuuure, I'm not going to watch TDKR too out of protest because they're rehasing Bane and Catwoman, how that sound? Stop being such big hipocrytes, at least man up and admit why you don't want to see The Amazing Spider-Man to succeed.HELL, most of you are already expecting Batman's reboot for fucks sake. AND YOU ARE ANTICIPATING Man of Steel. as I am too. The Amazing Spider-Man biggest crime to some is the release date for some, and everyone knows that.

[tonytr87]

it's not noble, Hollywood is not going to immediately start funding more "original" films just because this underperforms. That's not how it works

Of course that's not how it works. But it wouldn't hurt for an unnecessary and mediocre reboot/remake to fail either. Baby steps, people, baby steps...it happened once before (the transition between the 60's and 70's from cliched, traditional studio pictures to more risk-taking endeavors), it could happen again.

[tonytr87]

It's a noble thought but misguided. I didn't see, the near this level of hate for POTC4 and that went on to make over 1B WW. Any reason?

Can't speak for anyone else, but I personally had the same attitude towards POTC4. And even though it's a worse movie, POTC4 is still somehow more original than ASM.

[druv10]

Of course that's not how it works. But it wouldn't hurt for an unnecessary and mediocre reboot/remake to fail either. Baby steps, people, baby steps...it happened once before (the transition between the 60's and 70's from cliched, traditional studio pictures to more risk-taking endeavors), it could happen again.

I'm assuming you're not gonna watch TDKR since it's at 7 movies in 23 years.

[tonytr87]

I'm assuming you're not gonna watch TDKR since it's at 7 movies in 23 years.

Entirely different thing and you know it. That's like Rick Santorum saying "if you support gay marriage that must mean you support beastiality too." The Dark Knight Rises is the second sequel in a franchise that HAD to be rebooted, it's part of a trilogy that so far has transcended the superhero genre and pulled a complete 180 from what Burton and Schumacher were doing in the 90's. What Webb did with Spider-man (a franchise that didn't earn the right to reboot yet) isn't that different from Raimi's work, and judging from the film he appears content to conform to the usual Spider-man movie cliches (I say "Spider-man movie cliches" because it seems like they have a strict formula for them now). Edited July 13, 2012 by tonytr87

[artist]

Or they're afraid TASM might actually make money the weekend TDKR opens and don't want any $$$ taken from it. God---oops, sorry, NOLAN forbid TASM has even a nano sized effect on TDKR. :P

Apparently 190m OW won't be enough.

No one brought up TDKR before you did, so post backfired AA.

Sorry but TASM is a disappointment, not a bomb, not a success.

Definitely not the success that you thought it'd be.

[John Marston]

Entirely different thing and you know it. That's like Rick Santorum saying "if you support gay marriage that must mean you support beastiality too." The Dark Knight Rises is the second sequel in a franchise that HAD to be rebooted, it's part of a trilogy that so far has transcended the superhero genre and pulled a complete 180 from what Burton and Schumacher were doing in the 90's. What Webb did with Spider-man (a franchise that didn't earn the right to reboot yet) isn't that different from Raimi's work, and judging from the film he appears content to conform to the usual Spider-man movie cliches (I say "Spider-man movie cliches" because it seems like they have a strict formula for them now).

it's actually not the total rehash some people make it out to be.

[John Marston]

No one brought up TDKR before you did, so post backfired AA.

Sorry but TASM is a disappointment, not a bomb, not a success.

Definitely not the success that you thought it'd be.

if it gets to 800m WW, it's a success. No other way to spin it

[Deep Wang]

Suuuuure, I'm not going to watch TDKR too out of protest because they're rehasing Bane and Catwoman, how that sound? Stop being such big hipocrytes, at least man up and admit why you don't want to see The Amazing Spider-Man to succeed.HELL, most of you are already expecting Batman's reboot for fucks sake. AND YOU ARE ANTICIPATING Man of Steel. as I am too. The Amazing Spider-Man biggest crime to some is the release date for some, and everyone knows that.

The Catwoman and Bane in TDKR are going to be worlds different than the ones we have seen before on film. TASM is just another origin story telling the EXACT same beats over again.That's the difference.I for one, am not looking forward to the Batman reboot, unless they do something new. Until I hear what it is and who is going to be making it, I remain incredibly skeptical.

[ZattMurdock]

it's actually not the total rehash some people make it out to be.

It's as much as a rehash as Batman Begins. No one said it better about this subject than Orson Scott Card, writer of Ender's Game and one of my all time favorite sci writer:

How odd – the critics, who are supposed to have some kind of superior vision, have been almost universal in despising the new Spider-man movie.It's as if they all were organically connected to the 2002 Sam Raimi-directed Spider-Man starring Tobey Maguire, and by bringing out, not a sequel, but a reboot of that movie, some vital organ had been ripped from their bodies.I'm curious. What makes a movie "unnecessary"? That's how some critics are describing The Amazing Spider-Man, directed by Marc Webb ((500) Days of Summer) and starring Andrew Garfield (The Social Network).In point of fact, all movies are unnecessary. Think of any movie ever made. If it didn't exist, we would get along just fine. We would never know that it was missing. (Yes, that includes Citizen Kane. Especially.)If you doubt me, let me assure you that there are thousands of excellent scripts that have never been filmed, for reasons ranging from idiocy to cowardice. The fact that they remain unmade does not shatter our lives or prevent an occasional good movie from getting made.One might make a case that all movies with the name "Dr. Dolittle" in the title were unnecessary.But if a movie is very, very good, then who cares whether it was "necessary." All that matters is if, having seen it, we're glad we saw it and hope to see it again. Then it has made itself necessary.And if these critics were not so biased by their own prejudice, they would realize that The Amazing Spider-Man has made the earlier Spidey movie unnecessary.Let's put things in perspective. When Tobey Maguire first breezed above the streets of Manhattan in Spider-Man in 2002, superhero movies were still being played for campiness. Tongue in cheek.It was the tone set by the Richard Donner Superman – the one that introduced us to Christopher Reeve back in the previous century. There were serious moments, but also frequent winks at the audience. Lex Luthor was a pathetic joke of a villain. The menace was absurd. It was all for laughs.The Batman movies got progressively darker – but no less stupid at their core.So with Spider-Man, Sam Raimi took us to a new level of seriousness. We were actually invited to believe in Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker. We were supposed to care when Cliff Robertson, as his Uncle Ben, gave a lovely little death speech in Peter Parker's arms.And we did care. Many of us saw it more than once, because the story resonated with us. There was a core of reality. It was less comic and more book.But as the series went on, it got campier. The Batman reboot with Christian Bale set a new standard of seriousness in superhero movies – especially since Batman has no superpowers.Iron Man – about another superhero without superpowers – gave us wit without camp. As portrayed by Robert Downey Jr., Iron Man was funny within the movie. He didn't stop and wink at the audience, he winked at the other characters. He didn't break the fourth wall.Also, the Smallville television series – by far the best screen treatment of the Superman character – did a much better job than Spider-Man of exploring what it means to a kid to have adult responsibility thrust upon him.And because of several very bad superhero movies— several Hulks, a Four, Iron Man 2, the Superman reboot attempt – our standards rose. We began to recognize how lame most villains were in these movies, how trivial the distinction between good and evil – or, to be honest, between nice and nasty, which is about as deep as the moral reasoning went.So in the 10 years between the Tobey Maguire Spider-Man and the Andrew Garfield Amazing Spider-Man, it had become as impossible to continue the existing Spider-Man franchise as it had been to go on with the first Batman franchise or, for that matter, Star Trek in its first sequence of feature films.I'm not sure when they made the decision to make this a reboot instead of a fourth installment; I know there was a script for the sequel, and all reports were that it was wretched.Nor do I know which of the three credited writers is most responsible for the quality of this script – though it would be nifty to think it was Steve Kloves, who contributed so much to making the Harry Potter movies non-stupid.But whoever was responsible, the script for The Amazing Spider-Man did away with the last shreds of self-conscious unearned melodramatic cheesiness. The most telling demonstration: Uncle Ben gets no last words after he's shot.This is a script that expects the audience to think; it's a script that isn't counting on special effects to get us past the weak spots.In the climactic confrontation between hero and villain, we don't have the overworked cliche of the hero being at the point of losing, and then he has a moment of digging down deep in his soul and coming back with a new burst of will that allows him to win.Bursts of will get you the charge of the light brigade; bursts of will get you a couple of invasions of Russia; they don't give you victories.Spider-Man wins (come on, you didn't think he was going to lose, did you?) by staying focused on the primary goal, which wasn't beating the bad guy; he wins because he has help from Denis Leary in his most sympathetic role ever.There were moments with emotional demands, but in my opinion they were wholly earned within the script, rather than reaching for external manipulative tools. The thing with aligning the cranes was earned, I thought – it was way more thrilling than merely showing Spidey swooping from building to building (which we have already seen).The entire group I saw the movie with received that moment with a sense of affirmation: Yes. The people recognize that Spider-Man can't do this alone, and so they do what they can to help – and it's not nothing.In other words, the superhero isn't a species apart. The superhero needs the people.Was this a lesson learned from the Batman reboot? Probably – who cares? Artists build on what they learn from each other. Some learn by trying to turn the achievements of others into formulas; others learn by actually understanding how a good effect was brought off, and adding the technique to the artist's tool set, to be used only when appropriate.Yes, there was an actual ticking clock near the climax – I didn't say the movie was perfect, did I? But at least director Marc Webb did not cut back and forth between the action and the clock with the obsessiveness of formula films, in which the ticking clock is all they've got.They had the script; they had a director with judgment and taste; and then they cast it. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans and Denis Leary, Martin Sheen and Sally Field had way more to work with than the cast of Spider-Man had; but they also did more with what they had.Or rather, they did less. Underplaying was the order of the day in this movie. They didn't poke us with their "moments." They stayed surprisingly real. It's as if they thought they were in a film directed by Robert Redford or Nora Ephron – absolutely clear storytelling, emotional without sappiness, with real characters.Real? In a comic-book movie? Absolutely. Like Smallville, The Amazing Spider-Man is actually a coming-of-age movie. Most adolescents don't get actual superpowers, but they all get radical transformations in their minds and bodies, and have to deal with them; they either accept responsibility and become adults, or they fail to do so.In that sense, The Amazing Spider-Man is an allegorical documentary of adolescence (the way that Rise of the Planet of the Apes was in that astonishing reboot of an exhausted series).The result of all this is performances that these actors need never be ashamed of. If acting awards were given for honest, powerful performances instead of scenery chewing or obvious "technique," then this cast would be in contention; but that's not the planet we live on, so the actors will have to be content with having delivered re-watchable performances – rather like the terrific and underappreciated ensemble of Twister from 18 years ago, whose work is still delightful to watch.No doubt the third Batman movie will top this one at the box office; nobody will be talking about The Amazing Spider-Man at Oscar time. But I'll bet that in 20 years, this will remain as one of the good movies from the era of the superhero film. And Andrew Garfield will get his Oscar – not for this movie, but because of the talent and skill and artistic judgment that this movie gave him a chance to show.

Source: http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-Columns-c-2012-07-12-212483.112113-Amazing-SpiderMan-Bunheads-Rivers.htmlAs long as The Amazing Spider-Man is brilliant enough to captivate and turn intelligent people like Orson Scott Card into passionated loonies like myself, this franchise is safe and sound to an amazing restart, just like Batman found himself in the same position seven years ago.

[John Marston]

I am not too happy they rebooted the series so soon, but I understand why it happened and I now just accept it. It wasn't planned

[ZattMurdock]

The Catwoman and Bane in TDKR are going to be worlds different than the ones we have seen before on film. TASM is just another origin story telling the EXACT same beats over again.That's the difference.I for one, am not looking forward to the Batman reboot, unless they do something new. Until I hear what it is and who is going to be making it, I remain incredibly skeptical.

Agreed about TDKR, the problem is with YOU and others that FAIL TO UNDERSTAND that not everyone feel the same as you do about TASM. And trust me, BB ALSO HAD its detractors back in the day. That's what you fail to understand, I'm looking forward to a FULL reboot of Batman, just like Batman Begins and The Amazing Spider-Man are. Edited July 13, 2012 by Chris O Donnell

[iceroll]

Where are the Friday numbers?? Nikki is slacking again.