Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies

Jaws is a Box Office Hit Again, 47 Years After It First Hit Theaters (theverge.com) 90

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: This Saturday was dubbed "National Cinema Day," in which theaters around the US cut their ticket prices to $3 in an effort to keep bringing people back to the movie theater. And it worked! More than 8.1 million people went to the movies on Saturday, Variety found, compared to 1 million the day before and 1.7 million the day after. National Cinema Day brought the biggest crowds to theaters of any day in 2022, which leads to one inevitable conclusion: people will go to movies when movies only cost three bucks. Who knew!

One thing not needed to get the butts back in the seats? New movies. August has been a month-long movie doldrums, the result of so many pandemic shutdowns and general supply chain issues. Tom Cruise always has the answer, though: the top grosser of the day was Top Gun: Maverick, which added about $6 million to its box office haul over the long weekend. (Cruise and co. have been keeping theaters afloat all summer, actually, bringing in $698 million overall since the movie's release in May.) Spider-Man: No Way Home, which came out last Christmas, took second place in the box office. The best-performing new movie this weekend -- Honk For Jesus. Save Your Soul. -- came in at #14. But the real dark horse, the shark in the water nobody saw coming, was a little flick you might have heard of called Jaws. Playing in theaters around the country, the movie made about $2.6 million over the three-day weekend.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jaws is a Box Office Hit Again, 47 Years After It First Hit Theaters More

Jaws is a Box Office Hit Again, 47 Years After It First Hit Theaters

Comments Filter:

  • We're gonna need.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by drew_92123 ( 213321 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @01:01PM (#62857406)

    ...a bigger screen.

  • Top Gun has sold more home theater than any other movie. Perhaps this new one will do the same, I haven't seen it yet. It seems to at least have sold a lot of popcorn. In my case, it might get me to hook up my surround speakers. This living room is very inconvenient for that.

    Which makes me wonder, is the next logical step for theater chains trying to stay afloat to make movies that suffer badly from being watched on a small screen?

    • Top Gun has sold more home theater than any other movie. Perhaps this new one will do the same, I haven't seen it yet. It seems to at least have sold a lot of popcorn.

      The new Top Gun is amazingly better in almost every way from the original, I am really glad I saw it in a theater and could see where someone would want to watch that at home in really high quality.

      However I wonder if so many people already have large TV's and the like, that there will not be much in the way of home theater upgrades for that

      • Tom Cruise is still fighting the good fight to just get people to turn off the motion smoothing on their TV sets

        Unfortuntely based on a lot of the responses to this PSA it's still an uphill battle;

        https://twitter.com/StephenSea... [twitter.com]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ormy ( 1430821 )
          Making people aware of motion smoothing is one thing, telling them they MUST switch it off and watch the movie as the film maker intended is BS. Fuck the film makers and their intent. I paid for the movie, I'll watch it however I damn well please. And I happen to enjoy good quality frame interpolation. Why film makers choose to limit themselves to crappy 24fps is beyond me. Spatial resolution increases are always welcomed, why not increases in temporal resolution too?

          • Unless I am mistaken Tom Cruise is not at your house changing your settings but frame interpolation is letting a chip and some software add in digital frames they did not film or intend to be seen.

            Motion blur is a thing they actually take into account when filming and eliminating that could be the same as changing the music, or lines in the script.

            Peter Jackson tried the whole 48fps thing with the Hobbit films and people hated it. A movie is not a football match.

            The Hobbit: An Unexpected Masterclass in Wh [thehobbit]

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Ormy ( 1430821 )

                I read that article after the movie came out and re-read it now. I agree with many of the things the author writes about the effects of HFR, e.g. when he says it makes things look hyper-real, the difference for me is that it increases the immersion, for most people it seems to decrease the immersion The conclusion of why the HFR version flopped comes down to the fact most people associate high frame rates with low quality TV, the author of the article even says as much. (Also the fact that it was bundled

                • Yeah I don't think the article is correct fully on all the technical merits but I remember when the Hobbit HFR thing started there was a definite visceral audience reaction to it and part of that for sure is pedjudice to TV and the "soap opera effect"

                  I think the prime difference with the HFR setup and TV interpolation is that when Jackson shot with HFR that was his intended thing. He had the right cameras, the DoP knew the frame rate when shooting and when they worked in the edit bay they had awarenes of h

      • However I wonder if so many people already have large TV's and the like, that there will not be much in the way of home theater upgrades for that movie since what people have is already really good for watching movies at home.

        While a lot of people do indeed have large screen TVs (with varying quality and settings...so many leave on 'torch mode')....

        I would posit that the latest generations likely do not have much invested in the audio portion of the equation.

        And that is a BIG part, and even without being

        • While a lot of people do indeed have large screen TVs (with varying quality and settings...so many leave on 'torch mode')....

          They're large. But that doesn't mean a quality picture. Just look at all the people online complaining that certain movies and TV shows are "too dark." Because either the contrast is blasted to the moon or the panel can't even generate half of the NTSC color gamut.

          But yeah - for sound, the most people do is buy a cheap sound bar. So they can have speakers as good as their old CRT used to have and no better.

          • I guess it depends on what you mean by a cheap sound bar. The speakers in todays panels are so bad that a cheap sound bar is an upgrade. Better than an older CRT? Hard to say as the CRTs were smaller. Most LCDs now have the speakers near the edges so you can hear clear stereo separation... and can't understand the dialog. A soundbar with a proper left/right/center at least means you can tell what people aer saying without hurting your ears during louder portions. Of cousre I have the AVR disconnected

            • Better than an older CRT? Hard to say as the CRTs were smaller.

              They had plenty of room to hide a full size speaker, though. Stereo separation is nothing compared to representing the lower frequencies. Flat TV speakers are tiny. They are getting better, but still not good enough.

              • My friends who were film majors always told me that if a movie is good you don't need audio to enjoy it. Maybe. I can tolerate the effects sounding quite awful but I can't stand to ride the remote in order to turn up dialog only to turn down the volume in a hurry during loud effects. It's not the mastering of the movie. It's not the size of the speakers in the TV. It's that the L/R are too far apart for audio to be intelligible. Doe the people who make these things not even try to use them?

                • The L/R aren't related to dialogue. That's in the center channel. Not sure what you're saying about the gap. If your speakers aren't size matched, you may have to adjust the relative volume gain between the speakers once rather than worry about the master volume all the time. And turn down the sub. They always seem to get cranked too high and it muddles the rest of the sounds.

                  • TVs don't have a center channel. They only have L/R. Hence why even a cheap soundbar will be better than the built-in speakers. For a stereo setup the audio processor (hopefully) mixes the center channel into the left/right. But that makes it fairly unintelligible unless you have a very good two-channel setup which the internal speakers do not qualify

                    • You were talking about left and right being too far apart so it was really confusing that you're talking about the TV where they're only a few feet apart When a sound is coming through equally from left and right it sounds like it's coming from the center of the screen. It's not positioning that's the issue, it's having the dedicated speaker with no interfering vibration to muddy the sound. The only thing wide separation causes is a small sweet spot where the sound is coming from the right place. With a

                    • If the dialog comes equally from left and right, it will sound "on the screen." With a good L/R setup you can even use a "phantom center" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) For this to work, however, the speakers have to have the proper dispersion pattern. Otherwise you get destructive interference between the two and what actually reaches your ear is only sound that has reflected off of the walls and gotten muddy. Look at any public address system. There are only two speakers. If its setup well,

                    • It's not the size of the TV that's the problem. If you point the speakers straight ahead or inward, they will both be in phase with each other and you won't get any destructive interference. You'll get your phantom center to a strong enough degree as long as they're pointed relatively straight forward. With my 5.1 set, the left and right are across the room from each other. As long as I'm sitting fairly close to the middle, I don't have any big trouble understanding dialogue, but it's not as precise as

                    • We certainly agree that there are many problems with the speaker setup in current flat screen TVs. I am not qualified to debate which is the bigger problem.

                      When the speakers are close together and thus further from the side walls, regardless of the dispersion pattern, you get more direct sound and less reflected sound. This sacrifices stereo separation but makes speech easier to understand.

                      Older CRTs were smaller, with larger speakers, placed close together, and forward firing. And there may be more

              • Comment removed based on user account deletion

                • I'm not going back to the 60s. But even an 80s console TV had a separate space for the speakers. They'd be on the order of at least 2-3 inches wide. Speakers in a flat screen are what - an inch?

                  I'm relatively young. My first full size CRT had a flat glass front and HDMI inputs. The speakers in it were far better than my first LCD and it wasn't even as thin as the current ones. Though I did buy my first home theater speakers while I still had the CRT.

            • I bought a 60" TV last year and I still can't get over how bad the built in speakers are. Luckily I have a nice (ish) set I can plug in but the built in ones were amazingly poor.
              • Exactly. Which is why a cheap soundbar is an upgrade although, as the OP pointed out, maybe not as good as the built-in speakers in old CRTs. But old CRTs were much smaller and the speakers were closer together. For low-quality speakers, having the two close together and pointed directly at the listener means that you could at least understand dialog. Even low-end MTM center-channel speakers are tolerable.

        • I would posit that the latest generations likely do not have much invested in the audio portion of the equation.

          I agree with you but I wonder how many people would actually notice a difference if they spent money, or notice enough of a difference from the theater to actually go out and spend money on better sound.

          Now that you mention in though, that is the area where I agree it's probably more likely to see an uptick from home sales of the new Top Gun, if you are going to see anything.

          • Spending money on sound is a black hole of money. It's very difficult for anyone but enthusiasts to get better sound that beats a cheap sound bar, but costs a lot more, takes up more room, wires going all over...then the fucking amp dies and it's back to the drawing board. Not to mention that modern "open" home construction doesn't really lend itself to good audio.

            Of course if you have the skill to do it right, the results are very impressive. But i think most of us just don't care enough. I usually keep th

            • then the fucking amp dies and it's back to the drawing board.

              Or even if it doesn't die it simply doens't support the latest HDMI standard and as you said, you are back to the drawing board...

              I have a full separate amp and speakers and everything but so far have only the most basic audio coming out of a PS5 because I have not had time to debug audio connection issues. Pretty sad. Sure would be lots easier to just have a cable running to a sound bar I have to admit...

      • I saw it in an IMAX Theater. I could have had just as satisfying an experience watching it on my phone, had that been an option at the time.

        I don't really see what the big deal about IMAX is. It didn't seem any different from a regular theater.

        • I don't really see what the big deal about IMAX is.

          I agree with you, IMAX these days is more about a higher level of video and audio quality that is (I think) hard to appreciate in most theaters.

          Once upon a time IMAX really meant a 70mm print on a giant screen, now THAT was different.

    • I saw a glowing review of it from my favorite reviewer, who implied it had some depth to it. As a result I watched and was disappointed. It's a really good movie, but it's not what I wanted. Watch Top Gun if you want to eat popcorn and watch shit get blown up in a no-brain-needed action extravaganza with lots of cool planes and decent acting.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by kellin ( 28417 )

        Uhm. Seriously, how is the new plot any different than the original? It was the exact Top Gun movie I was looking for.

      • I saw a glowing review of it from my favorite reviewer, who implied it had some depth to it. As a result I watched and was disappointed. It's a really good movie, but it's not what I wanted. Watch Top Gun if you want to eat popcorn and watch shit get blown up in a no-brain-needed action extravaganza with lots of cool planes and decent acting.

        Hmm...what you describe actually pretty much checks ALL my boxes on a good movie I want to see...adding on that there's NO message being pushed at me.

        Just simple, qua

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tragedy ( 27079 )

          I'm sure there's a message in there somewhere. Something about how you can be a spoiled, self-centered waste of oxygen but all can be forgiven if you have extraordinary talent and use it to blow stuff up. Sort of like an inverted version of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer: all of the other reindeer, plus Santa, can be prejudiced bullies, but if you can just be useful enough to them, you can be forgiven for all the horrible things they did to you.

          I didn't say they were very good messages.

  • ...till they discover Hitchcock.

  • Who Are Not Full Of Cholesterol."

  • One can fire rifle rounds through scuba tanks and it won't explode. Didn't they prove that ?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Aighearach ( 97333 )

      Mythbusters' format can't prove anything. They try to do a thing, and they succeed, or they fail. It tells nothing about anything other than their own (usually poorly planned and executed) experiment.

      • May be there are lots of experiment where what they busted was not the myth they had set out to bust, nor what they claimed to have busted.

        But in this episode, they took fully pressurized scuba tanks and fired rifle rounds into it. It made a hole and the air leaked out. It did not explode. I found it pretty convincing that a rifle bullet will not cause the humongous explosion of a scuba air tank shown in the climax.

        • A lot might depend on the scuba tank and what it's made of, and also on the rifle used. A .223 is a lot different than a .50 BMG, for example, with very notably different effects on the things they're hitting. My guess is a small round like a .223 would, in fact, just punch a small hole in most scuba tanks. A .50 BMG would likely cause it to fail in a much more catastrophic manner. Carbon fiber tanks also likely react much differently than aluminum or steel tanks. Many variables at play here, and more

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tragedy ( 27079 )

            Unlikely to be a carbon fiber tank in jaws, but what the tank is filled with might make a difference. One could imagine pure oxygen possibly making a nice fireball combined with a bunch of gas produced by a shark digesting a _whole_ lot of people. Of course, it does lead us to the interesting question of what a bullet that will punch through a steel tank will do to a shark, which doesn't even have bones. What would a 50 BMG do to a shark? Great whites are big, but they're not _that_ big. Would an exploding

            • Depends a lot on the type of round... ball ammo or armor piercing round might just punch a 1/2" hole through it. API, APEI, or HEIAP ammo might be a lot more interesting. Find me a great white and some APEI and HEIAP rounds, and I'll give it a go and send pictures. :)

              I have the ball, AP, and API ammo, but the APEI and HEIAP I'm not sure I can legally buy, and I'm fresh out of great whites. Sad, because science wants an answer to this question.

      • It tells nothing about anything other than their own (usually poorly planned and executed) experiment.

        Providing their experiment matches the conditions of the myth they are attempting to bust they are usually pretty good. In that regard it works perfectly well when they replicate something verbatim (such as in this case where they fired actual rifle rounds into an actual pressurised SCUBA tank). Where Mythbusters often fail is when they attempt to substitute some condition or do something at scale. I think back to one that comes to mind was the first attempt at the boat bifurcation experiment where they thr

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by tragedy ( 27079 )

        Yes, empirical testing is good, and kudos to Mythbusters for that. However, if they set out to prove whether or not, for example, a double backflip was a myth or not they would spend a day or two filming Adam Savage trying to do one and then conclude that it's a myth. I recall specifically there was one experiment where they were trying to prove/disprove Archimedes mirror (for burning attacking ships with sunlight) as a loose collection of mirrored shields held by soldiers. If I recall, they concluded that

  • One Inevitable Conclusion (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CubicleZombie ( 2590497 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @02:05PM (#62857662)

    Movies cost too damn much.

    I took my three kids to see D.C. Superpets and spent $70 on tickets and popcorn. Absolutely Not Worth It. We were the ONLY people in the theater.

    So they drop prices for one day and see an 800% increase in volume. Think they'll get the hint? Not likely.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GoJays ( 1793832 )
      Nope they won't get it, in fact they will most likely lay the blame as usual on piracy. I see the headline already; "Piracy cost Theatres $1.4 billion in lost revenue last year" when it should really read; "Corporate greed responsible for $1.4 billion in lost revenue at Theatres last year."

      • ...when it should really read; "Corporate greed responsible for $1.4 billion in lost revenue at Theatres last year."

        I don't think there's a problem with corporate greed. They're in business to make money. But clearly they've priced tickets so high that they're losing money.

        A movie showing is a fixed cost. At $20/ticket with 4 people in the seats, that's $80 revenue. Drop the price to $3 and get 100 people in the audience, that's $288 revenue. That's exactly what they did last weekend. Not to mention there are 96 more people buying popcorn and drinks.

        This is literally first year ECON101. Any CEO who doesn't get th

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by bws111 ( 1216812 )

          You are completely ignoring the fact that the $3 price was a novelty. There was a lot of hype around the fact that the movies were only $3. How many people went to multiple movies? That does not necessarily translate into that many people going to the movies if the price was always $3.

    • And I never spend more than $5 when I go to the movies. My conclusion is you're spending too much.

      $5 is the Tuesday all-day price at multiple nearby theaters (yes, the same first run movies as any other day). And I have mastered the apparently-difficult skill of eating home so that I do no want to ruin my movie by crunching through it.

      • My wife was worried about taking a bottle pop into the theater. The guy beside me proceeds to take out a shopping bag of Chinese takeout and has a multi course dinner.

      • Movie ruined by eating popcorn? I think I get where you're coming from but eating junk food is a core part of the moviegoing experience, the _snootiest_ theater chains serve whole meals to your seat. Now I'm self conscious and eat quiet/quickly, but it's part of the experience.

        I don't know when movies turned into some super serious self important adult time thing, movies aren't exactly highbrow entertainment. And I don't even want to know anyone's opinions are on bringing kids to the movies, I'm sorry to

        • The only problem I have with this is people who make their experience of eating in the movies part of mine.

    • You dare to suggest that people want to do things that are affordable, and would pay to go to the movies if it were?

      I'm not all that old; when I was in high school I could go on a reasonable (for high school) date for $20. For a decent dinner and movie together, maybe I'd spend $30-40 at the high end. I could also go to Arco with a $10 bill and an empty fuel tank, and leave with a completely filled fuel tank, a candy bar, and change left over. ...sigh.

    • Movies cost too damn much.

      I took my three kids to see D.C. Superpets and spent $70 on tickets and popcorn. Absolutely Not Worth It. We were the ONLY people in the theater.

      So they drop prices for one day and see an 800% increase in volume. Think they'll get the hint? Not likely.

      Movie theaters are dying because of technology and circumstance. Technology is the better digital delivery methods, and circumstances are things like COVID, which changed people's entertainment habits (and unfortunately, has accelerated our journey to Shut-In Nation). I think at the end our our lifetimes, the multiplexes will be a thing of the past, much like drive-ins became. Most of your cities will have the odd theater here and there to show things like art films and Rocky Horror midnight parties, but th

      • Most of your cities will have the odd theater here and there

        And that's the problem isn't it. While you have upgraded your home theatre the cinemas in the USA largely haven't which has led to a massive decline in popularity. That however seems to be a very much USA based problem. In Europe many cinemas are going through massive upgrades, in my city we have 2 Dolby Cinemas, 2 IMAX Laser cinemas, 3x 4DX cinemas, and even many of the traditional theatres have been renovated to at least provide new facilities, comfortable seats, and current gen non laser projectors.

        Perso

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      So they drop prices for one day and see an 800% increase in volume. Think they'll get the hint? Not likely.

      Ticket prices are high because studios want big numbers. For a movie just opening, all ticket sales generally for the first two weeks to a month (depends on studio) will go entirely to the studio. The theatre makes up for it via concession sales, so during the first couple of weeks when the theatre is packed, they profit only from concessions, and not from tickets. When attendance drops off then the th

  • JAWS is super relevant (Score:5, Insightful)

    by snowshovelboy ( 242280 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @02:23PM (#62857694)

    Its a movie about something deadly happening in America where the scientist recommends lockdowns and the business community doesn't want to do it.

    • Yeah. And the movie is make believe too.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

        It'll still scare people. Especially young ones on an Imax screen.

        I remember Alien, the first one. I was with someone that was scared out of his mind.

        Side note - Jaws was really a remake/update of Duel.

  • I saw it when it came to UK in 1976. It was great then too! A real cinema experience, very funny and amazing when the head bobs up underwater and the entire cinema makes noises of alarm while involuntarily leaping out of our seats! As a memorable related event, my Step-Father drove us all to the cinema and developed truly appalling toothache during the film and drove us home sweating profusely and trying to convince us to fetch one of his guns and shoot him when we got home. We liked him, so we didn't!

  • When we need mortgages to see a movie... (Score:3)

    by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @03:15PM (#62857842) Journal

    I don't go to the movies now for two reasons: 1) The total cost is way overpriced. Fuck theatres when it costs 30+ dollars per person for ticket, popcorn, and a drink. And 2) Movies now suck shit. I am watching movies from the 70s and earlier that I never watched before, and loving them. They have actual stories based around characters and ... stories. They aren't just thin plot lines trying to stitch together big CGI sequences with shit stories tailored to what the effects people can create. Those older movies have little to no special effects other than what real stunt men/women could do, and the car chases are with real cars driving on real roads, and they don't jump 200 feet from building to building (that is, when special effects are even used... many movies are just good stories).

    Here's the thing, if they actually started making movies that are worth watching without all the unneeded billion dollar budgets and 10s of millions in actors fees (for actors that could be replaced by near any other actor for a special effects movie), the price to create a movie would be super cheap compared to what is being spent for most of these shit movies. And then they could charge less in the theatres and people would come out to watch more movies. Win win. People can go to an affordable night out, and Hollywood film studios don't disappear, being replaced by streaming services. Because what I'm talking about, the streaming services are doing. There are more interesting movies, with said character development and non or minimal special effects on the streaming services, and there are in theatres. (Yes I know there are special effects shows... don't be a laser focused dick... I'm saying streaming services have more non-effects driven offerings these days than it seems theatres do.) The film execs are so fucking dense and stupid they only see bigger bangs and booms. They have no actual creativity or stomach for taking risks on movies they don't understand. In days past, the best studio execs had a much better instinct on what to green light. Now it is just bigger, boomier, and even better if it is a sequel. FFS.

    Another option for theatres is to charge in relation to the budget of the movie. If a movie cost 500 million to make, charge 20 bucks a ticket. If it cost 10 million to make, charge 5 bucks to go in. I bet there will be more sure profit from the less expensive movies (as long as they don't make it an excuse to Netflix them: that is, just throw any shit at the wall and see if it sticks, and most of Netflix's stuff is shit... that's why now that they aren't the only game in town their numbers are shrinking).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The cinema experience isn't great either. They can never seem to set the thermostat to a sensible level, especially in winter when everyone is wrapped up. Often the volume is ridiculously loud too. I'm kinda surprised they are allowed to go that high for health reasons.

      In the UK you get inconsiderate arseholes ruining the experience. In Japan people are too well behaved, and sit there watching the credits scroll by until the very end before getting up to leave.

    • The problem is, if we make a movie that actually relies on the story, the characters, pacing, narrative and all the other things you want, you'll watch it at home on your TV because the experience is the same as in the theater with the awesome sound system and the huge, huge screen that is so great at showing those awesome explosions.

      This movie would be crap when viewed at home, because you don't have a super huge screen and awesome sound system to distract you from the lack of characters, story, pacing or

  • You'll laugh. You'll cry. (Score:3)

    by gosso920 ( 6330142 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @03:45PM (#62857906)
    You'll kiss three bucks goodbye.

  • Copyright protection is supposed to provide an incentive for new and creative works. It seems to be having the opposite effect.

    The same effect is seen with Star Wars, Marvel, Harry Potter, Godfather, Rambo, etc.,etc. Nothing new, just torture an idea to death.

  • Classic Bugs Bunny (Score:3)

    by tbuskey ( 135499 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @06:23PM (#62858290) Journal

    I had a chance to see Chuck Jones in a crowded theater and he showed many of the Bugs Bunny reels he directed.

    I grew up watching them on Saturday mornings in the 70s.
    Having an audience around you was so much better.

  • For some reason I read "Java is a Box Office Hit Again" and I started wondering what kind of computer movie the first one was. Instead of hackers in a basement saving the world, there would have been white collars in a cubicle farm, typing aimlessly on a keyboard while waiting for the next coffee break...? With Dilbert as a main character maybe? But would it have been a box office hit? Maybe a cubicle hit, at best?

  • More proof that the best Hollywood can do any more is just hack together imitations of what it did 50 years ago. Just like NASA.

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close