"Spider-Man 3" is king

email this story
read comments (31)
post a comment

Variety is reporting what I posted yesterday morning -- a first-weekend tally of $148 million for Spider-Man 3. That's the biggest domestic opening weekend ever. The comic-book extravaganza from the hand of director, co-writer and Republican supporter Sam Raimi also took in $375 million worldwide, which is the biggest across-the-globe tally in human history.

Congratulations, lemmings! By supporting a mediocre film to this degree you have guaranteed that more big-scale CG mediocrities (i.e., dumbed-down behemoths that don't logically add up or contain anything in the way of cleverness or skillful character construction, etc.) will be cranked out in the years and decades to come. You've told Hollywood in unmistakable terms, "Lower the bar all you want ....we'll come anyway as long the movie has cool CG and it's a major tentpole event flick that all our friends are hot to see...hoo-hoo!"

Weekend numbers<< previous | next >>Burn After Reading

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on May 6, 2007 at 9:52 AM

comment #1

jackkerouac says ...

As far as new releases go, it was either Spider-man or the VERY mediocre 'Lucky You'. At least with Spider-Man there is some entertainment value. Oops, I forgot. Well's is a big supporter of 'Lucky You'. Guess he's a lemming of another sort.

Posted by jackkerouac at May 6, 2007 10:18 AM

comment #2

George Prager says ...

If the legal drinking age was still 18, this wouldn't be happening. Hopefully, this movie will be the Sound of Music that triggers the Doctor Doolittles, Paint Your Wagons, Hello Dollys, Star!s, etc..

Posted by George Prager at May 6, 2007 10:21 AM

comment #3

Rosebudsthesled says ...

Will you please shut up, Jeff? God almighty I am really getting sick of you just bitching about this stuff. Is there anything ELSE you can write about?

Posted by Rosebudsthesled at May 6, 2007 10:28 AM

comment #4

travis b says ...

i don't mind the hating on spider-man by wells (and have you seen it yet, or are you just joining the pack?), but the berating of raimi based on his political choice (and a measly 900 dollars to boot) is fairly frightening. last i checked we had a choice of who we vote for, who we donate to..you may not agree with that choice, but to constantly go after the man for that is just as low as some of the crap bush and his cronies pull. plus, it reaks of someone grasping at straws in an effort to bring a success story down. seriously, just watch the movie, there's plenty of ammo for you there without delving into personal politics.

Posted by travis b at May 6, 2007 10:36 AM

comment #5

Mike Ock says ...

Hey Rosebud,

How dare you tell Jeff to shut up.

Jeffrey Wells may be a racist, hateful, despicable human being, with the ethics of a chain smoking, middle aged whore named Roberta, who only does incalls on Mondays and Thursdays at the short stay on Route 4 in Jersey to pay for her son Stevie's Invisalign braces, and so that he'd have some decent clothes to wear to Hebrew school, "Because waitressin doesn't pay like it used ta" but dammit don't you dare tell him to shut up.

This is his blog and he can write what he wants.

Posted by Mike Ock at May 6, 2007 10:37 AM

comment #6

Noah says ...

Don't forget that Jeff is one of those lemmings who paid his hard-earned money to see this film. Besides, who cares if the big studios are spending more of their money on these huge behemoth CGI movies anyway? These movies make money and that revenue is then filtered back into the system to make more films in general and then hopefully more good films. The grosses from these huge films help fund movies like Zodiac.

Posted by Noah at May 6, 2007 10:41 AM

comment #7

Ron Lim says ...

Fantastic! Great! Stupendous! Good! Anything that will help get you over your delusions that you hold any sway as an entertainment blogger. I think that when Murphy got snubbed at the Oscars, you convinced yourself that it was your doing.

As a fan of spider-man, Raimi and smart Summer fun, I can't tell you how happy Spider-man 3's grosses make me feel.

As much as I hate the Pirates franchise, I'm halfway hoping the third film not only breaks box office records, but is also critically well-received. Nothing would please me greater.

And before anyone accuses me of being vindictive, take a look at Jeff's anti-Spidey posts over the last three weeks. Have you ever seen someone root so hard for a movie to bomb?

Posted by Ron Lim at May 6, 2007 10:47 AM

comment #8

alynch says ...

It would be a whole lot easier to bash Wells had Spider-Man 3 not been a steaming pile of shit, but alas it is. So it gotta side with Jeff on this one.

And Noah, I don't follow your logic. How is a shitty movie making money somehow good for movies as a whole? The grosses of Spider-Man 3 will only help in getting more movies like Spider-Man 3 made, which is hardly a good thing. Had Zodiac made money, that would've helped fund more movies like Zodiac.

Posted by alynch at May 6, 2007 10:51 AM

comment #9

GeeseOPlenty says ...

The movie wasn't that bad. The first hour is seamless and beautifully made. The second hour is absolutely terrible--as bad as Wells makes the whole movie out to be. Then it has a fun fight scene at the end, followed by a series of "Return of the King" style endings that once again bring the movie to a crashing halt.

There's good stuff here, but it's a precipitous drop in quality from the first two. I never liked Maguire and Dunst in the roles, and now I'm ready to see what a new director does.

Posted by GeeseOPlenty at May 6, 2007 10:54 AM

comment #10

MovieBob says ...

"Congratulations, lemmings! By supporting a mediocre film to this degree you have guaranteed that more big-scale CG mediocrities (i.e., dumbed-down behemoths that don't logically add up or contain anything in the way of cleverness or skillful character construction, etc.) will be cranked out in the years and decades to come."

And if it were a "mediocrity" that didn't need/use CG, wasn't a scifi/superhero film you'd find a way to spin this as a positive whether you fully liked it or not. You were HUGE behind "Miami Vice," which is vastly more empty, spectacle-driven and flawed than this.. but Mann shoots on cheap video stock, and has "fumes," so it's okay.

For better or for worse (here and there, I think) we've turned a corner in terms of what's "big" in terms of big-audience cinema art in the 21st Century, the big one-two-three punch combo of Spidey/LOTR/X-men at the start of the millenium started it, the LOTR oscar domination cemented it, this continues it. This is, in it's way, just as significant as the 70s movie-revolution: It's a new epoch, the Geek Age of Cinema...

...and right now, you sound like those old-guard 70s fossils who turned up their noses at "Bonnie & Clyde."

Oh, and by the way:

"co-writer and Republican supporter Sam Raimi"

So, for balance, you're going to be AS big a dick about Adam Sandler if and when he's nominated for "Reign," right? And Jon Voigt, and Tony Scott, and "Die Hard," etc?

Posted by MovieBob at May 6, 2007 11:01 AM

comment #11

messiahcomplexio says ...

B I T T E R

Posted by messiahcomplexio at May 6, 2007 11:06 AM

comment #12

christian says ...

...and right now, you sound like those old-guard 70s fossils who turned up their noses at "Bonnie & Clyde."

let's not equate Spidey/LOTR/X-men with BONNIE AND CLYDE...remember the studio tried to bury it so they
could focus on possible tentpoles like DR DOOLITTLE...

Posted by christian at May 6, 2007 11:24 AM

comment #13

Noah says ...

But the fact is, alynch, that movies like Zodiac don't make money as great as it was. They wouldn't get made at all if the studios weren't flush with cash because of the tentpoles. The reason they call it a "tentpole" is because it's supposed to make enough money to support the rest of the studio's endeavors. Granted, there are more "tentpoles" these days, but just don't watch them if you don't like them. Apparently, some people do.

Posted by Noah at May 6, 2007 11:42 AM

comment #14

Hallick says ...

"The comic-book extravaganza from the hand of director, co-writer and Republican supporter Sam Raimi"

Honesty, between these three roles, the third is the extreme least of my concerns, if a concern at all.

Posted by Hallick at May 6, 2007 11:42 AM

comment #15

romeoisbleeding says ...

If the success of a movie like this last Spider Man one helps to fund movies like Zodiac ..then I say all hail Spider Man. Hell I may even go see it. But first I am going to see Zodiac for the 4th time at the second run theater in town here.

Posted by romeoisbleeding at May 6, 2007 11:43 AM

comment #16

GKLondon says ...

MovieBob, Think you're on to something there. I think it is a studio construct, and to do with their desire to make these kind of films exclusively their realm. Films like 300 (I know $60 mil is not small, but virtually every shot of the movie is an effect) and especially Pan's Labyrinth show that large scale or deeply involved effects are not just possible within the (straight jacket rigid) confines of a studio megalith blockbuster. Rather than embrace this boutique, affordable mentality, the studios seem to be saying "You want big, we'll show you big. THIS IS BIG!" Spiderman's 3rd act four way, the apparent hundred-ship-in-a-typhoon/whirlpool climax to Pirates 3, a dozen insanely complex fighting robots in Transformers! Lets see a small shop like CafeFX do any of those.

Rosebud, don't like what Wells writes, don't read it.

Wells, I don't think that CG is in of itself soulless, it's what surrounds it that is usually lacking. The latter Star Wars movies are beautiful to look at, breathtaking, but they are unbearable to listen to. You'd think they'd get the acting/writing right, comparatively, it's the easy part. These Spiderman movies have always been tough to sit through, as Maquire et al are given so little to do. And don't get started on the Dunst chick, she can't even play a bad actress well. The CG is almost a release.

Posted by GKLondon at May 6, 2007 11:45 AM

comment #17

GKLondon says ...

And yes, I know 300 was Warners, I used it as a model rather than a specific reference.

Posted by GKLondon at May 6, 2007 11:52 AM

comment #18

jeffmcm says ...

And here we are all supporting Wells in spouting his redundancies week after week.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 6, 2007 12:47 PM

comment #19

JD says ...

Everyone knows that when you pay to see a sequel, you're really just showing your enthusiasm for the previous film in the series. That's why SM3 is doing better than SM2 and SM4 will probably not do comparatively bad business. It's also the reason that Bret Ratner's awful X3 did better than the far better X2 and The Matrix was less successful than The Matrix Reloaded. With all that in mind, I don't find it all that troubling that people would show their support for Spider-Man 3 because that's really just saying that they liked Spider-Man 2, which was a damn good movie.

Posted by JD at May 6, 2007 1:28 PM

comment #20

JD says ...

Correction: That's why SM3 is doing better than SM2 and SM4 will probably do comparatively bad business

Posted by JD at May 6, 2007 1:28 PM

comment #21

symscovington says ...

"in human history" eh?

Those damn monkeys! We'll beat em eventually.

Posted by symscovington at May 6, 2007 7:00 PM

comment #22

The Hoyk says ...

Turn the record over, Sidney. Like most of the human race, I'm bored. I'd go a mile for a chuckle.

Posted by The Hoyk at May 6, 2007 8:22 PM

comment #23

christian says ...

next time i see raimi, i'm hitting him up for a thou.

Posted by christian at May 6, 2007 8:44 PM

comment #24

Rich S. says ...

The best part of this whole thing is that there is now nowhere left to hide. This is a worldwide, as well as blue and red, phenomenon. The pod people have taken over. And a high thread count t-shirt isn't going to save you any more.

Posted by Rich S. at May 7, 2007 5:27 AM

comment #25

Bocephus says ...

"By supporting a mediocre film to this degree you have guaranteed that more big-scale CG mediocrities (i.e., dumbed-down behemoths that don't logically add up or contain anything in the way of cleverness or skillful character construction, etc.) will be cranked out in the years and decades to come."

Mediocre? Jeff is being far too nice.

Posted by Bocephus at May 7, 2007 9:47 AM

comment #26

christian says ...

stephanie z. from SALON.COM gushed over SP3 calling it the best in the series.

Posted by christian at May 7, 2007 11:00 AM

comment #27

alan says ...

"let's not equate Spidey/LOTR/X-men with BONNIE AND CLYDE"

While we're at it, let's not equate LOTR with Spidey/X-men. Kthx!

Posted by alan at May 7, 2007 1:38 PM

comment #28

Craig Kennedy says ...

I wish the movie was better so I could strenuously disagree with Wells' predictable crankiness, but unfortunately it was boring as hell.

I agree with JD thought that the huge box office is more a reflection of how good 2 was.

It's going to be a lonnnnnngggg summer.

Lucky You wasn't great, but it wasn't half bad.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at May 7, 2007 3:49 PM

comment #29

Dave Polands Gut says ...

"The comic-book extravaganza from the hand of director, co-writer and Republican supporter Sam Raimi also took in $375 million worldwide, which is the biggest across-the-globe tally in human history."

If he was a Liberal supporter would that have been an adjective to describe him? I even expect better from a Far Lefty like you.

Posted by Dave Polands Gut at May 8, 2007 11:24 AM

comment #30

jonjscott says ...

Was there such a huge turnout for Spiderman 3 because of the marketing or because Spiderman 2 was and still is the best comic book movie made to date? I suppose it's too much to hope that the suits will get the message that quality pays off.

Posted by jonjscott at May 8, 2007 12:35 PM

comment #31