Monday, July 31, 2006
In it's 5th weekend at the US Box Office, Singerman continued it's disappointing run grossing just $3.78 million over the 3 day period, only good enough for 12th place. Singerman's whopping total domestic gross sits at $185,794,683. A big disappointment for a film with a production budget of $260 million and a rumored additional $100 million in marketing costs.
Since people like to compare this film to the much better thought-out, and actually entertaining Batman Begins, let's take a comparative look shall we:
In Batman Begins 5th weekend at the US box office, it took in $6,035,300, or about 38% more money. After it's 5th weekend, Begins box office total was $183,140,850 or about 98.5% of Singerman's. Begins' total US box office at the end of it's run was about $205 million. Begins cost about $150 million to produce and about another $45 million or so to market.
What does this tell us? Singerman had a bigger opening than Begins, but has tailed off after that first opening 5 day weekend for reasons that have little if anything to do with Johnny Depp. Since Begins was actually good, and Singerman was terrible, it has had better legs, and little by little is reducing Singerman's initial lead in box office which ironically enough for Singer, was most likely due to that marketing department he likes to toss under the bus. If you do the trending for these figures, you'll see that barring any foreseen spike in ticket sales for Singerman (provided Singer doesnt start mass buying tickets or something) it's going to crap out around $195-$196 million. When you factor in the cost of Singer's "great epic," that's where things begin to get ugly for Singer and Co.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
NRAMA: What happened in America?He's making this MUCH too easy for us. First off, he blames the film's marketing for it's poor domestic B.O.. I dont know about you but you couldnt swing a dead cat around here without hitting an "S" symbol for about a month. Maybe it''s just the fact that movie sucked?
BS: In my personal estimation I felt it was an issue with the marketing. You’ve got a dense summer and you’re resurrecting a character. There’s a different kind of approach you’ve got to take when you bring in something new. Even though he’s Superman and the character is ubiquitous, a Superman movie is a very new thing and it has to be presented in a new way. So a lot of that burden falls on the kind of presentation it is given.
Secondly, he says the film needs to be presented in a "new way." Ummm this coming from the guy who gave us a retreaded version of Donner's 30 year old film? Take your own advice, hoss.
NRAMA: I was really surprised that the plot of Superman Returns mirrored the plot of Donner’s Superman movie so much.Gee, ya think?
BS: It takes you on the same journey that the original one did buthere we go.... It's the same journey but it's really new, and you have to be able to understand the difference?
as an adult which was quite intentional. Right down to him sinking in the water.
It is not remaking the first one but I wanted to take the audience on the same kind of journey as the first one but with a mature guy who’s going through a dilemma that wasn’t in the first one. It’s in the marketing. I don’t know how to specifically qualify but it has to be understood how to present something that hasn’t been around for a while. The last Superman, Superman IV, in its American release made 15 million dollars. It is still something new and it has to be launched on the flip side of the other movies of its ilk.
NRAMA: After he gave up his powers in Superman II, Lois and
Superman slept together. I’m going to assume that that’s when he got her
NRAMA: Then he gives her the kiss, which made her forget
that they even slept together. Was the pregnancy a mystery for her?
BS: I ignored that part. I just assumed she remembered sleeping with him.
Blah, blah, blah, vague sequel, I picked and chose certain aspects but other aspects that are necessary to form a cohesive plot in the viewers mind are ignored simply because our hack writing team couldn't figure out a creative way to tie it all in since Donner never covered it. Though I guess in Singer's defense, pulling excuses out of his rear is better than just stammering in front of the microphone, so perhaps he's learning?
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Singerman's pathetic box office run hit an all time low on Friday. According to Box Office Mojo Singerman fell out of the top 10 in this, just it's 5th weekend. Although actual dollar figures arent available at this time (since no one really cares about anything but the top 10) it would've made less than the $1.2 million that 10th place "Clerks II" raked in.
By comparison, The Devil Wears Prada which came out the same weekend as Singerman, still hung tight in 9th place taking in $1.45 million while being in about 250 less theaters. That's right folks, a movie that's allegedley about Superman is getting pounded at the box office by an Ann Hathaway movie about a snobby fashinista. I'll surely wear my "S" shirt with pride.
Stay tuned for the weekend estimates which should come out sometime tomorrow afternoon.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Apparently "BJ" and his buddy Kumar (we're glad to know Kal Penn's not actually a mute BTW) had a little fun one day with some video production equipment and made a little video called "The Avon Lady."
I think Brandon has more dialogue in this little cameo than the whole of Singerman, and I dont know about you, but I cant get "YMCA" out of my head... and "BJ" wonders how rumors start.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
"Smallville," unlike the big-screen "Superman," manages to touch the viewer intimately, and makes you want to reach out to Clark and make his life OK — because he deserves it more than anybody else."While we're apt to agree with her in every which way, we'd just like to point out that even Tom Welling would've been weighed down by the awful writing and dialogue in Singerman that rivaled even the worst of Smallville epsiodes, so we're kind of glad he stayed where he did. Give us a new director and writers with a compelling storyline in the vain of Superman: Birthright and we'll be all over that like a cheap pleather Singerman suit.
Friday, July 14, 2006
The Daily Mail has quite a story in today's edition, regarding Routh throwing a hissy fit at the UK premiere.
American star Brandon Routh was left furious this week after he complained the make-up used on his face at a press conference made him look pale, artificial and 'a bit wimpy'.
The actor became annoyed when he saw pictures of himself posing up next to his Lois Lane, Kate Bosworth, who, he said, looked much more natural and sunkissed.
After the Superman Returns press conference at London's Dorchester Hotel on Wednesday afternoon, Routh's aides had new darker foundation flown in for him to use in time for last night's premiere in Leicester Square.
This begs the question...what was his excuse in Singerman???
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
AOL Video is hosting a video file from TMZ.com where a European journalist interviews Bosworth, Routh, and Singer about Singerman and how it got it's butt kicked by Pirates of the Caribbean 2.
Bosworth and Routh both seemed liked they'd been prepped prior to the interview, and gave the typical stock responses to the questions about it being "good for the industry" yadda yadda yadda.
The truely amusing part comes at the end when the reviewers starts asking Singer questions about POTC2. Bryan seems like he had no idea those questions were coming, or is in some kind of denial. His response is laced with enough "uh's," "gah's," "duh's," "err's," and general stuttering to make "George" from Of Mice and Men look like a Nobel laureate.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
"Talent agency insiders with ties to the film tell TMZ that Warner Bros. Pictures president and COO Alan Horn has informed agents that a sequel hinges on whether grosses of "Superman Returns" can crest the $200 million mark domestically. What's more, the studio plans to shave millions - many millions - off any "Superman" sequel's budget.
Talent agency insiders, speaking on the condition of anonymity, insist that Horn is so concerned about being burned financially by ionospheric "Superman" special effects costs that any sequel's budget would cost far less than Bryan Singer's quarter billion dollar baby: a meager $150 million. That's a whopping $35 million less than its predecessor was green lit at, and roughly $55 million less than "Superman Returns" alleged final negative cost."
Now dont get us wrong, we're Superman fans first and foremost, we just dislike (understatement) what Singer has done to our proud icon. Rather than seeing the cancellation of any further Superman films, we would hope that WB would address the real problem, which isnt the character, it's the guys writing and directing him, and send them packing while bringing in a more qualified staff.
Monday, July 10, 2006
What was supposed to be the "Clash of the Titans" between box office heavyweights, ended almost before it began. Pirates of the Carribbean 2 debuted to the tune of a record breaking $135.6 million opening weekend.
Singerman on the other hand, was left sucking wind. Singerman continued to free fall losing a whopping 58% of it's opening weekend box office earning just $21.8 million.
That's quite the dropoff in one weekend, especially considering every other movie in theaters saw a marginal increase in attendance this weekend, most likely from the spill over effect from Pirates.
Monday, July 03, 2006
As soon as BJ's casting was announced, rumors of him "playing for the other team" ran rampant along with a pretty crazy story about a Halloween cocaine party with Singer. About a month later, Radar magazine speculated on the how's and why's of the casting. Routh's publicist came out and flat out denied the rumors, and things got quiet for a while.
On June 2nd, gay magazine The Advocate published the cover story "How gay is Superman?" wondering just how gay Superman was? Although it was mostly a look at how the characters themselves have things in common with homosexuals, it does bring up some interesting points about Singer and Routh.
"Not for nothing does gay director Bryan Singer have an eye for how to make the Superman suit most flattering to Brandon Routh in Superman Returns."That same day the LA Times wrote a story about Superman's appeal to gays and how it could hurt his image especially in conservative states.
"But four of the movie marketing executives, all of whom declined to speak on the record, said gay "Superman Returns" interest presented two potential box-office problems. First, teenage moviegoers, especially those in conservative states, might be put off by a movie carrying a gay vibe; among some teens, these executives agreed, saying something "is gay" is still the ultimate put-down. Second, the attention threatens to undermine the film's status as a hard-edged action movie, making it feel softer, more romantic, and thus less interesting to young ticket buyers who crave pyrotechnics. "This led to rumors about just how Routh got cast in the role, being brought up again, as well as mentions of Singer's previous "hot tub casting" issues and proceeding litigation, that cropped up a few weeks after Routh's initial casting.
After that WB and Routh's agent came out to deny those rumors and tout Routh's relationship with a longtime female companion as evidence of his heterosexuality (havent they ever seen Will & Grace?) only to have the infamous "coming out of the closet" Topps card at the right pop up, showing Singer's pension for subtle symbolism perhaps?
Then on June 10th, Singer comes out and categorically denies that the character in his film is gay, claiming that, "Superman is probably the most heterosexual character in any movie I've ever made. " He then went on to call the film a "chick flick" which may have sent mixed signals.
Now rumors are abounding that WB is revamping their recent ad campaigns to show less of Superman pouting and more of him trying to kick some ass. You've got to find it pretty amusing though, since everytime they seemingly have a handle on things another less than flattering pic of their star pops up that are so suggestive, it's just too easy. C'mon man, Vanity Fair?
Stay tuned as this story continues to emerge.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
"It was another one of those weekends at the box office when forecasters got duped, studios started spinning, and the big numbers weren't nearly as impressive as they appear. After opening with $21 million on Wednesday, Superman Returns grossed $52.2 mil over the three-day weekend, according to Sunday's estimates. Its cumulative take going into the Independence Day holiday now stands at $84.2 mil. To be sure, $84.2 mil is nothing to sneeze at — unless, of course, you consider all the hype and expectations that accompanied this movie. Oh, and the fact that the flick is said to have cost Warner Bros. upwards of $300 mil. But I won't go there just yet. I will say, however, that I think you should feel a bit sorry, dear reader and moviegoer. Shame, shame, shame. Because if more of you had gone to see Supes over the weekend, then I wouldn't have to sit here and spend time explaining how his premiere is a disappointment.
Superman Returns' five-day total is merely the 28th best ever. Looking at its three-day figure, among both summer bows and all-time premieres, Superman Returns doesn't even land in the top 10.
Superman Returns was supposed to be, like, the biggest movie of the summer, and when you start thinking about how it probably needs to earn more than $600 mil worldwide to break even, well, that now seems like an even taller building to leap in a single bound.