How about you get the numbers right. The article you are refering to was using UK gross numbers not US box office returns, as you did. If you look at the global box office for the two movies, spider man made about 288 Million (54%) more than MBFGW. I am sick of you people who try to dismiss with lies those on the right, who are giving perfectly good arguments from well known facts and data. You cant argue with them, all you can do is lie and give false numbers. You say you need to see the numbers. Why dont you look them up yourself? They are easily found on the web (BOXOFFICEMOJO.COM).

Will, you are an ardant, passionate movie fan. Who really gives a Flyin' F&%( anyway? It's just a movie... I don't have enough time in my day for movies. I don't have enough time in my week for movies. I probably watch 3 movies a year. I don't even watch T.V., I am a musician, I am an electrical engineer and I am going through the process of finishing up my 2nd major in Business. Climb off of your couch and get productive dude. There's a lot of territory to conquer and you're glued to the boob tube getting sucked into the reality of make believe.

It's really not anything to get that upset over. Really.

"... apparently the Christian Film and Television Commission ... trying to convince people that they can make more money with wholesome family movies than with sexy romps."

So?

Maybe pointing out to the industry that enough people are willing to PAY to see a movie that is not R-rated or relies on gratuitous sex and viloence is merely pointing out that there is a demand for that type of film.

I love a good hard R flick at times, with plenty of both, brain candy, if you will. I also want movies that I don't need either to drive the plot, am I demanding Quentin Tarantino go work for Disney?

Don't worry, Phil, as long as movies make money, plenty of movies will get made.

Gee, folks, that's why there are different genres -- one for each kind. Kid-flicks and chick-flicks, action-pics and horror and porn and artsy-fartsy stuff.

You pays yer money and you takes yer choice!

And nearly a year later, the post is resurrected! I had to go back and read what I wrote eleven months ago to even measure exactly how incoherent Will was being.

I did notice a few things about the comment that made me decide not to write an overly long rebuttal:
1. He doesn't know how to end a question with a question mark.
2. He's sick of me after reading a single article.
3. He accuses me of lying even though I produced documentary links for my factual statements. Nine links in all!
4. He calls me "you people" and suggests I hate the right, when in fact most people who know me identify me as a conservative Christian.
5. He suggests I visit a website to which I linked multiple times in my article.

And on it goes. But hey, if the biggest nit someone can pick with my post is that a somewhat violent PG-13 action movie beat the pants off off a PG family movie, then I suppose they're making my point for me, so I'll let them carry on.

I think one has to define morality first. Unlike our resident electrician GEO, who evidently has taught himself to read by firelight, I watch more than three movies a year.

I also often watch television when a good basketball tournament is on. Anyway, there are markets for all kinds of films. A family film is never a lock at making money, though I notice quite a few of them do. But this world would be one fucking boring mudhole without "Once Upon a Time in West," "Night of the Living Dead," "Taxi Driver" and "Amityville II: The Possession."

If we lived in a world where nothing but remakes of "Yours, Mine and Ours" were constantly unleashed upon a vomiting public, violence would increase in the streets, riots would erupt and mobs would destroy civilization as we know it.

But that's just my opinion.