Yeah, I know you're right. I feel kind of stupid for even posting that now, it was just a thought more than anything. I actually read that thing I mentioned in the little news section on IMDb, I'm not that stupid to give creedence to what every weirdo writes on that site.

> > Also, I think that certain critics, including Roger Ebert, are involved in a plot to deter movie-goers from seeing Spider-Man, most likely to ensure a strong opening for Star Wars Episode II.
>
> I can't conceive of any reason on earth why Roger Ebert, or any other critic, would *care* about a strong opening for Star Wars Episode II. Critics don't benefit based on the success of films at the box office. And the box office success or failure of Spiderman will not have any significant impact on Star Wars receiving a strong opening. So not only don't I see any possible motive for such a plot, but I also don't see how anyone that close to the film business would think it would work.
>
> > I thought that Roger Ebert and a few other critics negative reviews of the film were wholely groundless.
>
> That's entirely possible. It is, however, a bit over-cynical to assume that "Ebert and a few other critics" did not *believe* what they wrote. Ebert's been wrong before -- in fact, I think he's wrong somewhat frequently -- but I've never found him to be intentionally dishonest.
>
> > I could have chalked that up to matters of taste until I read on IMDb.com that "parents are cautioned against taking young children to see Spider-Man." They made some kind of vague allusion to September 11th and that it's a different world now and Spider-Man portrays the world as a dangerous place and that could be harmful to children.
>
> Where on IMDb did you read this? If it was a "user comment," then that comment was made by some random yahoo on the Internet and doesn't have anything to do with the opinions of even the IMDb staff, let alone professional critics. Ebert, by the way, has been pretty level-headed about the impact of the September 11th events on the movies, generally coming out against over-reactions such as studios editing out content of finished-but-not-yet-released films that might "remind" viewers.
>
> Studios cave into the pressure to take such measures to avert controversy. But basically the only people that seem to think it proper to pretend the World Trade Center never existed are a bunch of vocal but not very bright activists that are always finding *some* kind of cause to take up against film and television. Generally they just make a lot of noise and post weird comments on the IMDb. It's safe to ignore them.