Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

OK, so Spider-man is released on the 3rd May 2002 according sources on the net, having been pushed back from a Summer 2001 release. This will oput it within a few weeks of Episode-II's release but probably not close enough to impact too much.

My question is this, which of these two effect intensive movies will attract more butts on seats and will once of them be the top movie of 2002?

I know that, as Star Wars fans, we want to see Episode-II in that biggest grossing film of the year slot, but is it realistic?

Star Wars has always dominated the box office and I am sure that EPII will be no different. Plus, if its as good as everyone is saying then it should absolutely dominate the box office. Of course, I still plan on seeing Spider Man once, but I'll see EPII at least 5 times.

Well, I'll see both at least once. I saw Ep-I three times on the big screen and expect to do the same with Ep-II, but as with yourself I will probably only see Spider-man once.

Isn't it going head-to-head with the next Star Trek movie as well?

Yeah, and it's an even numbered one. Traditionally the even numbers Star Trek films always do well.

Spider man, oh downer never liked the comics. Star Trek is well crap? I`m not allowed to use harsh language here, but Star Trek is boring boring boring it would have fitted better in a Riky Lake show as Drag Trek.

finti: You're a funny guy, I don't always agree with you on your taste of films, but you ARE funny. Star Trek is boring I know.

When I was a kid I loved the Spiderman comics, but the movies they made were totally AWFUL. I think Spidey deserves one proper film.

Putting it behind episode II will only help Spiderman just like putting the Mummy behind TPM helped that movie. TPM actually helped most of the movies around it by getting people to want to go out and see movies and I'm sure it'll be the same for episode II. Star Wars will rule all, but the other movies will benefit from that.

Because of the sheer impact of the release of episode 2 , i doubt much else of importance will be released up to a month after it's release certainly in the states and maybe over here. Spideman won't even come close to the impact of this film. Seriously I think there's more hype about this than there was for episode 1 even.

I think its wise to put up a film when epII opens. People who dont get a ticket to epII want to go to a show and watch another film instead. They be back another day to see epII. Nothing Hill did great when it was released against epI.

I agree with queeq that Spidey needs a least one good film. The tv series was enough to make you throw up.

But I don't think it will affect the release of epii at all. True fans know the basics of whats coming (Anakin beginning to turn) and if you're as single-minded as I am when it comes to SW movies, you head into the threatre looking left nor right, and compete in a full-scale lightsabre fight for your seat if you have to. I've outrun imperial starships. Not the local bulk cruisers, I'm talking about the big Corellian ships now.

Yes, Spidey won't rear such a crowd as SW will. After all, SW is close to being a genuine phenomenon.

I'm sure there's a lot of crossover fans. Most SW fans are into lots of different sci-fi anyway. IMHO.

Spidey ain't sci-fi.

I'm new to this forum so please bare with me. I like both Star Wars and Trek. Both for different reasons. I do prefer Star Wars, but some Trek is ok. I'd still like to see the Enterprise go up against a Star Destroyer.

Go DOWN against a SD, I'd say.

Hi there Pax, welcome to the board. It's okay with me to like ST, there's a few others here like you. Come over to the Tavern in the General Discussion Forum, free drinks for newcomers.

The enterprise would go down against a Spitfire.
Star Trek is the worst scifi together with Babylon 5, man what a bore. Space and Beyond was 10 times better and that really says it all. Nothing compares to SW.
Come May 2002 and it will be perfect. Man I hate to wait and it have to be ONE WORLD ONE RELEASE.

JMHO.

He doesn't like Bab 5... must...exercise...self..control...

Breathe in and out Ushgark, slowly, in and out...in and out...(BTW, Next Genreation Rocked, that is the show...)

Ok...ok..thanks, DB, I'm better now.

I liked the original series with Kir. They had all those crappy sets and bad looking aliens.

I know Spidey isn't sci-fi, queeq, what I actually meant was films in that vein, like not "Sleepless in Seattle" or something like that. GUY MOVIES....yeesh, I can't believe I said that and I'm a girl.

Spidey could never do as well as Star Wars!
The only other film that might get close is the LOTR Trilogy.

It could be suggested that I'm a touch of a comics fan but that does not bias my opinion, that Spidey is likely to do well, for if for no other reason, because the X-Men film did well and as such comics films are big at the moment.

I've just read that the Terminator 3 movie is planned for release in Summer 2002. Looks like I won't be seeing much sun then. A lot of exciting movies due then.

Any Terminator fans?

I love the Terminator films, DJ ! Do you know any of the plotline for number 3 ?

No sorry, I am making a point of not finding out. I tried not to find out what happened in TPM until I saw it but curiosity got the better of me and it also happened with Ep2. So I want to keep this one surprise. I was told that the story is set in the future (during the war) but this is not concrete. There is also a female terminator (rumoured to be played by Famke Janssen aka Xenia from Goldeneye) but I don't know anything definitive.

Plotline for Terminator Three(completely off subject): Term goes back to find what ever the boys name is( cant remember) when hes older. Some big war with robots lead by the boy and Term, not many details right now, it could all change, sorry for getting off subject.

www.upcomingmovies.com

That's been known for a while now.

Love Terminator, 1 better than 2, though. Except for the nuclear blast scenes.

T1 better than T2...oohh... controversial

Is it? I thought that was commonly accepted. I mean T1 was a pretty compact film with a nice pace. T2 had more sides to it but it wasn't balance that well. I love them both though, but T1 was better. IMHO.

I thought the camps were directly split.

What side are you on?

I think T1 is a much better film. The T-800 really creeps me out. I didn't really like the 'poly-alloy' terminator in T2.

Here is a link to the scripture for T3:

www.kino.orc.ru/continue/...OR%203.htm

I loved the T-8000, pretty cool. Too bad the CGI look outdated now, but the idea was pretty cool. I would have loved a good and bad Arnie going up against each other though. As was the original idea.

LOTR trilogy is gonna be good, never read the books thoug got bored with Hobbit so I let it be.
Babylon 5 is, together wit Star Trek, the lamest show I ever seen. There are class A sci fi which is SW alone then you have the B group: ALIEN the 8 passenger, Aliens(Alien2)
Starship Trooper, X Files (the first 3 seasons),guess ther is more but I cant remember any ohh of course Terminator 1&2.
Matrix is not a good movie IMHO.
Babylon 5 and Star Trek is not on the alfabet.

How about 2001 or the Abyss (if that is sci-fi at all)?

2001 was boring and Abyss was ok I guess, strange ending, but all in all okey.

Yes, the ending was odd. But 2001 was an awesome film. But sure it's boring if you like a naked Costner under a waterfall.

I thought the Abyss was pretty cool...how do you guys like the Alien movies...1 was good, but I liked 2 a lot more....

There were more action in Aliens(2), but I like both the firs one and the second one, the third well call it the turd. Guess that says it all.
2001 is more like and movie for the weak of hearing. I know they claim there is no sound in space, doesn`t have to put that into a movie.
How do they know there is no sund in space?
It`s like if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to witness it, does the tree make a sound falling?

Didn't like Bab 5.... anger... rising...

They know there is no sound in space as a scientific fact. Actually, you can'r see starts in space either. They wanted to take them out for 2001, but the studios wouldn't let Kubrick/Clarke go that far

Alien 1 and 2: great. Saw ALien 3 tonight again, it was on TV: so so, nothing special, like Alien 1 but not as good. Haven't seen Resurrection yet.

No sound in space, since there is no oxygen. It's a vacuum out there. Sound is transferred by waves, it's need particles in the air to transfer it. Since space is a vacuum, sound cannot move anywhere. Hence it is silent.

Also, there's no pressure there either. If you step out into space without a pressure suit, you'd explode. Our bodies provide pressure from withing to withstand the pressure from the outside in our atmosphere. So when you'd go out into space, the pressure from the inside is still there but there is nothing to stop it. You can see that happening in "Outland".

As for the stars, I think that depends on where you are. If you look at all the nasa stuff they shot in orbit, there are stars visible. There's a huge sun out there, reflecting it's light off planets and stars.

So why do we have listening posts towards space then?

There is a way of sending signals into space. I mean they talked to the guys on the ex-Mir (splash). But I don't know how that works. It that kind of electrostatic noise what they listen to.

Actually, a lot of the shots you see are starless. Human eyes can't pick out stars, unless you a. look really hard and b. have an atmosphere

Also actually, that whole pressure/exploding thing isn't true, though they won't tell you how they know that because it was dodgy... the body goes into a vicious haemoregging, but it doesn't pop.

I thought thy imploded in space just as they do under water.

Under water is the other way around. When you go very deep, the pressure on the body is stronger than the body can resist. So that would be imploding.

That's right, though you would die long before imploding depth, and after that you tend to float. You'd have to be in The Abyss and open an airlock, or something, for a true implosion. But the whole space thing is more complex than they used to think; Event Horizon is pretty close to how it is.

How come you know so much about space conditions? I'm impressed.

It's my friends, really. They are all around genius level, and they talk a lot.

I'm impressed, Ush. What's their midi-count ?

Okay, question on topic (yes, I said that). Where do you rank Spidey in your list of superheros ?

Not on the list as a matter of fact I dont have any super heros besides my mirror image

Does he wear a cape?

No cape, no mask just plain ole me. Spiderman has arachnaphobia

Poor Spidey. It's tough as it is for him, with all those goblins and octopi.

Okay, I'm gonna go start a superhero topic in GDF just to keep the mods happy and because I want to pick brains on the subject.

The Bride of Hannibal.

The canibal who ate Hannibal

Probably.

They probs just ejected a chimp into space and watched what happened to it. Think about it though, space has an ambient temperature of around 3K (that's -270C, -454F or bloody cold to all you non-SI gimps) at that temperature water freezes very rapidly. Now your skin is strong stuff, a 1 atmosphere pressure differential won't tear it apart straight away, more likely the surface capiliaries in areas like your nose and ear where the skin is thin will rupture and the blood that flows out will freeze very quickly. I'd image the water in the surface of your skin and your eyes would also freeze within 60 seconds. I don't think it would be a pleasant death.

Well, it's over pretty quickly.

And that makes a lot of sense. I forgot about the cold in space. Yeah, I guess that won't make a body explode.

Are there a pleasant death?

Actually woudldn't make the body implode?..no explode.

Well, Thrax can field any further Physics questions... courtesy of the Chelmsford info-o-rama.

In a vacume of space the body would explode.

NO IT WOULDN'T! We've just had that argument. Check back.

I did and you're WRONG. In a vacuum a body will try to expand to equalise the pressure. Thus it would eventually explode as the vucuum ripped it apart.

The lungs however may well imnplode as the oxygen is ripped from them. Planes and stuff that implode only do so as a result of the evacuation of the air cause negative stresses on their structure.

This is ya actual basic physics. Place an egg in a chamber, evacuate the air and eventually the egg will explode in an attempt to even distribute itself across the voided area.

Look at the area of greter stress/force and that's where the plosion will go.

Sorry, RC, but modern day scientific thought is now agreed that people don't pop in a vacuum. NASA thinks so, the European Space Agency thinks so, and the Russians think so.

I'm no physicist, but my friends DEFINITELY are.

As I remember, the reason you don't pop is something to do with the compressibility of the human body and skin resilience. Thrax has got a Masters in Physics, btw.

Well whooppee for Thrax. Stick HIM in a vacuum and we'll see what happens.

Well, he'll die in about a minute, but he won't pop...

I can see the "compressibility of the human body" thing I guess, but certainly opjects without that compressibilty may try to explode. That said, dowsn't water form a perfect sphere in a ultra low gravity vacuum?

Umm... beginning to get out my depth here. I'll ask Thrax. All I know is that there are pressing reasons why the body doesn't pop, even though it technically should.

It doesn't pop because it'll probably freeze instantly. If you'd do it in a vacuum here in on earth, it might pop. But that's the thing with space: it's soooo incredibly cold. SO you'd die in an instant but not pop. Or so I learned from Ush's friends. And as Ush said: check back.

Plenty more expertise where that came from...

Ush's word is law on that one for now.

Hey, I like this. Masterhood has its privileges...

Indeed. You are now the science delegate.

Sorry, poor thick little english boy is sooooo out of date on his physics.

Einstein was WRONG!!!

Uh-oh. Ush has competition from Arsey.

He wasn't wrong in the sense of stupid, though.

Every rule in physics only applies when there is a beholder. For example, they say nothing moves faster than the speed of light. B***ocks. If I were in space (where there is nothing to relate distance to) and I were travelling at the speed of light. I then passed some other space traveller who was going a mere 10km per hour. It would appear (to both of us) that we were travelling the speed of light+10kph.

NO IT WOULD NOT!

Relativity states that you cannot exceed the speed of light from ANY point of view. It does not matter what your combined speeds are; from where you are you will NEVER see anything exceed light speed. It cannot be done (excepting some new hyperadvanced theories on the correct way up of the Universe). This can lead to different observers seeing different things, according to where they are and what speed everything else is moving at relative to them.

What you have said is so, SO wrong...

And in space you have no more or less point of reference for your speed than you would on Earth. In the end, the only important point of reference is yourself (though general speeds are measured relative to Earth).

To give some examples:

Light always moves at lightspeed, regardless of what you are doing. If you were on a bike and trying to race a car,logic dictates that the faster you pedal, the less quickly the car would get away from you. Light does NOT work like this. No matter how fast or slow you pedal- or even if you stay still- the light beam would get away from you at the same speed- light speed- as far as you are concerned. Even if you went to light speed (relative to an observer... and it would be impossible anyway), the light beam would still get away from you at light speed, as far as you saw it.

Now, it would seem logical that the observer, therefore, would see you moving at light speed and the light beam moving at TWICE light speed, because that is how it is moving according to the biker. But he wouldn't, because light speed at the limit. HE would see biker and light beam moving at thr same speed- light speed. This even means that the biker would see things illuminated that the observer wouldn't.

Relativity contradicts common sense- two observers can see the same effect differently. But light speed will NEVER be exceeded, from any point of view.

The reason that this happens is to do with time, but it gets too complex at that point.

Well I thought I was being a smart @#%$ but apparently not. I'l just curl up and die now.

Thanks Ush

No problem. You should see how my friends have yelled at me over time...

However, your basic point, that physics is all on observation, is very true and was a good point to make.

*stands there with his mouth open... baffeled*

It all makes sense, I promise. That's just basic relativity. I decided not to read any further than that...

Hmmph. Quiter!

There's a lot of THAT about.

I'm impressed, Ush.

Physics boggles the mind. That stuff is real basic, as far as relativity goes.

I know. And yet... to post it like that, off the top of your head. Not bad.

I agree..(apparently no one can tell when I make a joke )