Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Box Office Update: Still Coming Up Short

<-- a sure fire way to get your kid pummeled this Halloween (most likely by kids dressed as pirates). In case you haven't noticed, we've switched to doing these updates every couple of weeks now because, well constantly updating you every week on this film's box office shortcomings has gotten a bit boring. Singerman's 13th weekend at the domestic box office is in the books, and like most of the 12 before it, it left a lot to be desired. Singerman continued its slow painful crawl to its demise by grossing a whopping $301,373. The vast majority of that coming from the 100 or so IMAX theaters it's still sitting in per a contractual agreement. This takes Singerman's disappointing domestic gross total to just $198,447,055.

How does that stack up to your favorite piece of comparative cinema, Batman Begins? Well in Begins 13th domestic weekend last year it took in $440,469 or approximately 32% more. That took Begins total domestic gross up to $204,145,879 at the time, which is about 2.8% more than where Singerman is at right now.

Another interesting tidbit, is that Begins total domestic theatrical run was about 20 weeks. From the end of it's 13th weekend until the end of it's theatrical run it only took in another $1,197,895. Assuming Singerman could get back to the level where it's making the same each weekend as Begins, (instead of trailing behind by about 32%) it still would fall short of the $200 million mark domestic, the alleged "make or break point," with a total gross of $199,644,950. Assuming Singerman stays 32% behind Begins income level, it would end up at around $199,261,623. Another thing to consider is that Begins 13th weekend was in early September as opposed to late September like Singerman, so it's going to be even harder to make up those numbers for Singerman now that we're getting into October, and the summer film season has long since ended.

136 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think the best way for Superman Returns to make more money would be to have midnight showings in places like West Hollywood and the Castro District.

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't this site be harping on X3's Bo not BB. X3 cost about the same to make as SR and will make about 50 mil more. Why would you harp on BB compared to SR when SR is about 17 mil WW in the clear of BB. Plus this is really misleading, check the averages, SR made an average of 2,430 compared to BB making 814, it was in 541 theatres compared to just 124 for SR. BB got a big theatre jump that weekend because it went into a number of dollar theatres. With Open Season coming to I-Max this weekend, SR may get a good jump into dollar theatres as well and it would easily cross 200 mil domestic. You I-Max arguement is not well thought out by the way, i suggest you check the numbers on Ant Bully, that tanked in both formats and there was the same amount of 3D footage in the film as SR. Suggesting that SR is a bad movie and the only reason it is showing late legs is because of the I-Max is just not accurate. I have read countless articles that stated SR has done better than expected on I-Max in spite of not having a lot of 3D footage.

Anonymous said...

I think that SSS may jump off a roof is SR hits 200 mil domestic. You can tell he is running scared right now. This is the same guy that said it would die at 195 then 196 and 197.

Anonymous said...

It WON'T hit $200 million domestic, so don't worry about it. You "Apologists", I swear...

And he was stating the IMAX showings were HELPING Singerman, not hurting it. If it wasn't for contractual obligations, Singerman would be COMPLETLY out of theaters right now.

S.S.S. said...

As I stated in the mailbag post on August 25th, I continue to compare the film to Begins b/c in the beginning that was all you heard on the Net and in the press about how it was tracking ahead of Begins, even though the cost basis of each film is vastly different, so the comparison was pretty stupid. People were trying to use that as a basis for claiming the film was doing well. After about the 5th weekend when SR fell behind BB there was no mention of Begins from the film's supporters or the WB owned media. The worm had effectively turned. The continued comparisons to BB now just exascerbate how poorly SR is doing since a film that cost close to $100 million less to make and market, is going to make about $5 million more domestically.

As for per theater averages, it's a pointless statistic at this point since SR is almost completely out of regular theaters. That mattered back in July/August, when it was still in mass distribution. And even back then it was still losing out to films like DWP on average after it blew it's intitial load the first 2 weeks of July.

As for the film having "legs." It doesnt have them and never really did. The fact that it's still sitting in 100+ IMAX theaters due to a contract isnt indicative of a film's legs. When people say a film had "legs" that means it's lasted a while in conventional theaters and it's still profitable for standard exhibitors to keep showing it. SR effectively came out 4th of July weekend, and all but disappeared before Labor Day.

S.S.S. said...

And for the record, I never predicted $195 for the film. The only one I recall making was that it would finish somewhere around the $197 million mark which is about where it would've finished if not from the bump up from IMAX. I underestimated just how long WB would be milking that one, and admitted so in the posting 2 weeks ago.
Like I said then, WB should be kissing the feet of the IMAX people for the bump in gross they gave to their sorry summer slate. Come next contract, IMAX is going to have them over a barrel.

Anonymous said...

Not really S.S.S...When the sequel hits, and it will hit, it will have alot more 3D footage. So IMAX would be insane to try and blackmail WB. Because even though they may be contractually obligated to keep the film in theatres it is still making the theatres money. What other film would be taking its place right now? None. So keeping it in their theatres is smart business sense, since this is the time they make the most profit off of a movie.

At this point, I could care less if it's making most of its money in IMAX. Who cares? It's making money and that's all I care about. It won't make it to 200 million but it will fall pretty damn close.

Anonymous said...

"<-- a sure fire way to get your kid pummeled this Halloween (most likely by kids dressed as pirates)."

Even though I completely disagree with you about this film I have to say that this was hilarious.

Anonymous said...

SSS, you really need to provide a credible link to your claim that SR has this lengthy I-Max contract or stop saying it. I am not talking about this tabloid nonsense you post like Brandon Routh is a homo i mean a credible source. It is almost Oct, the film came out in June. That is a long time for the I-Max to be forced into keeping it in the theatres as you are claiming. The other poster is correct Ant Bully flopped badly and was pulled pretty quickly from both formats. I have a friend that saw SR 2 weeks ago in I-Max on Fri night and he said it was almost sold out, sounds to me like the reason it is still there is because it is sill making money.

Anonymous said...

I think the only people who enjoyed Superman Returns were females and homosexuals.

Anonymous said...

wait so he needs to post a credible source, but yet you're giving us the old "my friend saw it 3 weeks ago and it was sold out" as evidence to the contrary?

I dont think S.S.S. ever said it wasnt making money on IMAX, in fact his last couple of posts say the exact opposite, that IMAX is saving the film's bottom line from being a total loss.
If the film was this high quality movie that audiences were eating up, why wouldnt it have done better in conventional theaters and still be in at least some of them, as opposed to solely IMAX? The answer: the film is live actions and all digital and has 20+ minutes of 3-D shots, so it lends itself perfectly to the IMAX format, which people go to mostly for the experience of watching a film in that format. Hence the reason those silly IMAX documentaries like "Mission Space" make upwards of $75 million.

danmankp37 said...

Your missing the point SSS, is making the claim that SR is still obligated to be in the I-Max for this long. So in one breath he is saying it's butt is being saved by the I-Max and in the other he is saying only because it is contracted to be there. SSS has not offered any proof of this at all, the other poster is correct where is a link confirming this. Think about his arguement for a second, if there is a deal in place that has kept SR in I-Max this long that begs 2 questions. 1) How do you explain all the I-Max theatres that have dropped SR? For that to be true the contract wuld have to be vaild in certain cities but not in others. 2) Why was Ant Bully pulled from I-Max before SR when it was released after it? According to your arguement the BO has little to do with it being pulled if it has a contract to stay there.

S.S.S. said...

The Ant Bully was a poorly animated piece of garbage. Thats the reason why it didnt do well in any format. Visually it was nothing special, so IMAX didnt provide anything different for the movie experience except some subpar 3-D work. Even it still made money on IMAX though. There are seperate contracts for made for each movie, pulling out early by either side results in penalties to the other. Ant Bully's stint in IMAX is independent of SR's. The contracts are negotiated by the film not the region. IMAX is required to keep the film in a minimum amount of theaters for a specified period of time. It picks and chooses which areas it drops based on what movies are making what in each area. IF no one is watching SR in Peoria, it goes. If people in Chicago are still going to see it enough, then it stays. It's a rather simple concept.

SR for all it's faults has some pretty nice cinematography and a few "cool-looking" special effects.( Remember thats what got left in there at the expense of a coherent plot accoring to the VFX guy.) The second time I saw the film it was on an IMAX screen, and the few action scenes looked impressive even if their underlying premises were ridiculous. THAT's what IMAX is all about. That's why movies like that Michael Jackson's "Moonwalker" movie do well in the format, because even though their devoid of any kind of substance, visually their impressive to look at and loud.

As for WB and IMAX's contract. Look it up yourself, it's easily accessible. That's how IMAX exhibitors work.

danmankp37 said...

The contracts are negotiated by the film not the region. IMAX is required to keep the film in a minimum amount of theaters for a specified period of time. It picks and chooses which areas it drops based on what movies are making what in each area. IF no one is watching SR in Peoria, it goes. If people in Chicago are still going to see it enough, then it stays. It's a rather simple concept.

That is exactly what i said, it is based on the business it is doing in those areas, now this is what you said in your blog.

The vast majority of that coming from the 100 or so IMAX theaters it's still sitting in per a contractual agreement. This takes Singerman's disappointing domestic gross total to just $198,447,055.

Hello what a contradiction that is. You are insinuating that the film would not be in those theatres if it was not under contract to still be there. It is Sept 26th, there is no way it is still contractually obligated to be there, if it is i say again give us proof not just your opinion.

Anonymous said...

SR is still in those areas because it is still making money in them. The movie is out on DVD in 2 months, obviously it is way past the point that theatre owners are required to keep it there anymore.

Anonymous said...

The vast majority of that coming from the 100 or so IMAX theaters it's still sitting in per a contractual agreement.

Open season is out this weekend, that will pull SR out of most I-Max theatres that it is still showing in. The 2 major releases on I-Max this summer were Superman and Ant-Bully. Well Ant Bully tanked so that got dropped quickly and Superman has performed well on the I-Max so it has stayed, in many areas while they are waiting for Open Season to come out. I am not sure what the blogger is saying about it is still under contract to be there, this far into a release that would be unheard of for theatre owners to still be required to show a movie.

Anonymous said...

IMAX is a totally different ballgame compared to regular theaters.

I think what the blogger is saying that like any other movie WB contracted SR to be in IMAX theaters. Since it's still making OK money, per the contract, it stays until revenue drops below a certain point and then it gets tossed at the IMAX theaters discretion. Atleast that's how I understand IMAX theaters to work, from having worked as a theater manager at a normal Regal Cinemas.

Anonymous said...

while I haven't seen it on IMAX I was down in Atlantic City 2 weeks ago and it was still playing in the casino's IMAX. It was splitting time with another film(I'm sorry guys I was drunk and I don't remember the other movie because I was shocked it was still in the area when here I thought it was gone because the internet searches turned up empty). So if it's making good money it will most likely split time with Open Season. Open season will get the times up to 9pm and SR will get the times after 9pm most likely.

Anonymous said...

I think what the blogger is saying that like any other movie WB contracted SR to be in IMAX theaters. Since it's still making OK money, per the contract, it stays until revenue drops below a certain point and then it gets tossed at the IMAX theaters discretion. Atleast that's how I understand IMAX theaters to work, from having worked as a theater manager at a normal Regal Cinemas.

Which if true would show that SR is making still good money on the I-Max and that is the main reason why it is staying there. Unfortunately SSS has consistantly twisted the facts in an attampt to favor his arguement. SSS. references BB numbers in the last few weeks where it is slightly ahead of SR, yet fails to mention that it is in far less theatres and SR average is far higher than BB at this point. He also blows that arguement off saying that is because of the I-Max and then goes on to say yeah well it is contracted to be there so that is why. In your blog you made an extremely misleading statement saying that in the 100 plus I-Max theatres it is still making money it is contracted to be there, insinuating that it is not the popularity of the film but more that it is required to be there. Newsflash SSS, if the film was not making any money in those locations it would not be there. I suggest you be a man, step up and admit you made a misleading statement and clarify your point. The reality is Superman is still making money in those areas and that is the only reason it is still playing in those areas PERIOD.

Anonymous said...

I dont think he's ever said anything to the contrary about the IMAX theaters. He basically came right out and said IMAX is saving the film's butt these last few weeks. I think your misconstruing his statement about it being "under contract" with the IMAX theaters as the only reason its still there. SSS never came out and said that, atleast not that I could find. I believe the point of that was to show that IMAX is going to be able to ask for a heck of a lot more $$ the next time they negotiate a contract with WB since they've added more than anyone would've thought to SR's bottomline. You seem to be reading things into his comments, in your undying quest to disprove or discredit the blog.

Bushtastic said...

"Not really S.S.S...When the sequel hits, and it will hit, it will have alot more 3D footage. "

why in the blue hell would i want 3d footage mixed in with my movie? great idea. lets ruin the illussion and jar people out of being engrosed in a film by having buldings fly by their heads. its a gimmick and has no place in story telling. it doesnt add anything. it detracts. the only people it would appeal to would be young kids and idiots.


singer said recently when asked to explain the wrath of khan reference ""What I was referring to was the fact that, when you do a first film like X-Men, for example, you're introducing a world and a set of characters. Once those characters are introduced, once we've lived with them for awhile and we know them, when you get into a second film like an Empire Strikes Back (sequel to Star Wars: A New Hope) or a Wrath of Khan, you can make an action-adventure film and you don't have to bank all that time getting to know the characters. Now you can raise the stakes, raise the jeopardy and make a leaner, meaner movie."

so he has obviously never watch batman begins or spider man or any other superhero film for that matter. and the star wars reference just destroyed his point because episode 4 had loads of action and excitemnet. i dont want excuses i want a new director and writer.

Anonymous said...

"why in the blue hell would i want 3d footage mixed in with my movie? great idea. lets ruin the illussion and jar people out of being engrosed in a film by having buldings fly by their heads. its a gimmick and has no place in story telling. it doesnt add anything. it detracts. the only people it would appeal to would be young kids and idiots."

So every single person that saw it in IMAX and loved it including reviewers(even SSS said the 3D scenes were cool) they are all idiots?

There was action in SR, it just wasn't Superman punching everyone in sight. And while I loved BB, I wouldn't mind them getting someone else to direct the action scenes. Even after multiple viewings it's still hard to make out exactly what the hell is happening.

Anonymous said...

Action? In Singerman Peeps? What is this "action" that you refer to?

The "action" of violating Lois' privacy? The "action" of weeping like a schoolgirl with a skinned knee? The "action" of LIFTING everything in sight? Yeah, that's some gooood "action".

Anonymous said...

BS' comment about "introducing" the characters is ludicrous beyond explanation. He SPECIFICALLY piggy-backed S:TM so he didn't HAVE to re-introduce these characters. I mean, it makes total sense to "introduce" these characters in the middle of a soap-opera love triangle, right? Complete with bastard child.

Even BS has NO IDEA what he was doing.

Anonymous said...

Singerman continued its slow painful crawl to its demise by grossing a whopping $301,373. The vast majority of that coming from the 100 or so IMAX theaters it's still sitting in per a contractual agreement. This takes Singerman's disappointing domestic gross total to just $198,447,055.

Just chiming in here that is a pretty misleading statement that he made there. I read through the other posts and when given a chance to clarify his point SSS, did not and simply stated that the film gets pulled based on popularity in that area. That is true a film after a certain period of time is pulled at the discretion of the theatre owners. There is no contract between a studio and a theatre after this much time has passed, the film has been out for 3 months. So maybe he was trying to say that they will have WB over the barrell for next contract, because it made them a lot of money but SSS should have clarified that point, because SR still sitting in those 100 or so theatres in I-Max has nothing to do with any contract whatsoever, the initial deal with WB to show the film had to of expired a long time ago. The more accurate way of putting it would have been, I-Max will have WB over a barrell come next negotiation since SR did so well on I-Max and found legs on I-Max and left the whole contract thing out of it.

Anonymous said...

In the end it doesn't matter either way. It will NOT reach $200 million domestic, and looks like it WON'T hit $200 million foreign. The film was a let-down to EVERYONE involved.

Well, except to maybe the "Singerman Apologists". To them, mediocrity is pure GOLD.

Anonymous said...

Superhero movies do not make a lot of money in the foreign markets. SR looks like it will finish at about 195 overseas and if it gets into dollar theatres will hit 200 mil domestic if not will finish at 199. Batman Begins tanked overseas only made 166 mil which is bad even for a superhero movie. Spiderman is the only superhero that seems to play big overseas making over 400 mil there in each of it's 2 films. As far as the I-Max arguement goes, i don't see how either side will have the other over a barrell next time around. SR made I-Max theatres a lot of money this summer. Through all the negativety about it's BO, there was nothing but positvity about it's I-Max totals. In 2009 if it is more action packed then there is more potential for great 3D scenes which I-Max would be crazy to not want to be a part of, considering how well SR did in I-Max without a lot of 3D scenes.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure this will be spun in some bad way on here, but his is revelant to the discussion...

http://www.superherohype.com/news/supermannews.php?id=4747

Anonymous said...

I'm sure this will be spun in some bad way on here, but his is revelant to the discussion...


There you go like i said SR has done really well on I-Max and it is in the best interest of both parties to want to do it again in 2009, not just one.

Anonymous said...

Superhero movies do not make a lot of money in the foreign markets. SR looks like it will finish at about 195 overseas and if it gets into dollar theatres will hit 200 mil domestic if not will finish at 199. Batman Begins tanked overseas only made 166 mil which is bad even for a superhero movie.

Excellent point, you made SSS harps on the domestic numbers for SR and BB which will only be about 5 mil difference. SR has made 23 mil more overseas and counting than BB. It is insanely unfair to consistantly harp on the domestic comparisons to BB, when SR had to face Pirates all summer long. Please tell me the haters in here do not believe BB would have made 205 mil last summer up against Pirates like SR has been.

Anonymous said...

SR DVD comes out on November 28th, POTC 2 comes out on December 5th.It's going to be a repeat of what happened at the Box Office.

Anonymous said...

No it is different on DVD, sure Pirates will outsell SR on DVD but plenty of people that thought SR looked good not great will check it out on DVD. Check out the numbers on DVD sales for last year, movies that tanked at the BO like Cinderella Man sold well on DVD, so certainly Superman will do just fine in that area.

Anonymous said...

http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/rentals?date=2005-12-25

Here so nobody accuses me of being full of crap, check out this site, that shows DVD rentals in Dec of 2005, look at the movies that tanked at the BO doing well on DVD. SR is going to have no problem selling and renting well on DVD.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately for SR there's no IMAX for DVD's.

Anonymous said...

No, but fortunately for SR there are home theatre systems with HD/TV....SR and all movies like it are made for home viewing. People who may not have wanted to pay more than once to see it will definitely rent it for their home systems.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately for SR there's no IMAX for DVD's.

That is a retarded statement!!

Anonymous said...

I wonder what SSS will do with his life once SR is totally out of theatres and nobody visits his blog anymore. I guess he can wait until the DVD comes out and try to spin the numbers on that like he has everything else to serve his pathetic agenda.

Anonymous said...

Every film that beat SR in theaters is going to do better in the rental and sales market then SR.

Anonymous said...

Assuming Singerman could get back to the level where it's making the same each weekend as Begins, (instead of trailing behind by about 32%) it still would fall short of the $200 million mark domestic, the alleged "make or break point," with a total gross of $199,644,950.

I highly doubt a Superman sequel is hinging upon a few hundred thousand dollars. If it needed to make 200 and only made 180 then yes but 199.5 or so they will definately make the sequel.

Anonymous said...

Singer is a FAG and Superman Returns was gay.

Anonymous said...

Every film that beat SR in theaters is going to do better in the rental and sales market then SR.

Actually very often the opposite is true. The DVD sales/ rental market is a whole new ballgame. Just check out the post i had a few posts earlier and you will clearly see films that flopped at the BO doing very well on DVD and SR hardly flopped.

Anonymous said...

"I wonder what SSS will do with his life once SR is totally out of theatres and nobody visits his blog anymore. I guess he can wait until the DVD comes out and try to spin the numbers on that like he has everything else to serve his pathetic agenda."

He will still have "Apologist" lame-brains like yourself visiting to "Defend" this travesty of a film.

I really do laugh when I read some of your posts on here. You people ACTUALLY think you are going to convince people the garbage they smelled while watching "Singerman Peeps" was actually ROSES. Fortunately for us, WE have a little thing called "standards". You, on the other hand, have "blind devotion" to BS' bs.

Anonymous said...

My buddy told me about this place and I had to check it out. Man, talk about living in your own world. What’ll it be like next year when there won't be anymore SR news to report? I can admit SR had its share of flaws, but I hope you realize your whining is a waste of time. Half the posts on this blog are just random news articles spun to support outlandish opinions; no one else goes to such extreme lengths to vent. Usually, people just drop it and move on.

Learn a new trick, start picking on other movies, or just stop this all together. You didn't like the movie? Fine, why not leave it at that? Is it really worth to keep going given all this 'denial' the studio and fans are going through? SR might not have been perfect, but at least it’s not going to ridiculous lengths to complain about something.

Anonymous said...

"I really do laugh when I read some of your posts on here."

Oh because "Singers a Fag and Superman Returns is gay" is such a smart argument?

S.S.S. said...

I didnt undertake this blog with the thought that it was going to be a career move, so there's no need to worry about what my future holds once the film disappears into the ether.
In effect the blog's already done it's job since it's gotten word out about certain things with the film, and voiced the major gripes of the fans. It's also gotten noticed in certain circles that I never would've thought. So anything from here on out is gravy.

Anonymous said...

one thing to consider with IMAX theaters is that the tickets are almost double what they cost in a standard theater. Around here a standard theater ticket is like $9, while an IMAX ticket is $15.

The $30M SR made an IMAX is still pretty darn good, though it does beg the question why didnt it do better in all theaters? My answer, people go for the IMAX esperience regardless of the film. Hell I went to see "March of the Penguins" in IMAX for the sole purpose that I thought it would look amazing, which it did. Would never have gone to see that in a regular theater though,

Anonymous said...

Here is why to me this blog and SSS himself makes no sense. He claims to be a big Superman fan, yet has gone out of his way to trash the film's BO performance, cheering on the fact that it has underperformed. Now i am not saying that becuase he is a Superman fan, that he had to love the film. What i am saying is if this movie does not do well enough to get a sequel, then that is the last we are going to see of Superman for a VERY LONG TIME. As a Superman fan you should still be hoping it does well enough at the BO to get a sequel and it is more to your liking the next time around. WB sunk so much into this movie, they are not going to start from scratch again. I get that you have issues with Singer but you know what, Star Wars fans had issues with Episode 1 and especially Episode 2 but Lucas regrouped and gave the fans a great Episode 3. To me your blog should be more about what Singer can do to make the next film better not cheering on it's flaws especially at the BO. Like i said as a Superman fan even one that hated the film like yourself, i would think you want to see more Superman films and if this does not get a sequel, you will not get anymore for maybe another 20 years. So i would start hoping the sequel gets greenlighted and is just better in your view than this film.

Anonymous said...

To me your blog should be more about what Singer can do to make the next film better not cheering on it's flaws especially at the BO.

That is the stupidest thing I've ever read. Why would any real Superman fan (people who read the comics, not people who think Donner created Superman) want Singer back? That's the same thing as saying "let's give Joel Schumacher another" chance after Batman & Robin. Singer destroyed Superman. He was given $200 mil and he made a fucking chick-flick. He doesn't deserve another chance. I've been reading the comics since I was 6 and I would rather go 15 years without another Superman movie than see Singer make a sequel to his abomination of a movie.

Anonymous said...

Actually your response to the poster is dumb as toast. The poster is correct a true Superman fan wants to see more Superman films and if this does not get any more than you can kiss Superman goodbye for a long time. The Star wars anaylsis is dead on, Episode 2 was viewed by Star Wars fans as a horrendous 2 hour and 30 min chick flick with amlmost no redeeming qualities. Lucas bounced back with Episode 3 and that was viewed by most Star Wars fans as by far the best of the prequels. So your assessment that Singer can not do better the next time around is based on nothing but your own prejudice.

Anonymous said...

Just wanted to let this blog know that Superman Returns is adding 286 theatres this weekend. How will you spin this one? I wait with baited breath.

Anonymous said...

I think Singer should have made Charlie and the Chocolate Factory instead of Burton because who knows more about fudge than Bryan Singer.

danmankp37 said...

Just wanted to let this blog know that Superman Returns is adding 286 theatres this weekend. How will you spin this one? I wait with baited breath.

It is starting it's dollar theatre run this weekend. So that means in spite of Open Season coming in this weekend it did not lose a ton of I-Max theatres and added a bunch of dollar theatres. SR now has a very good chance at 200 mil it is only 1.5 mil away.

Anonymous said...

oohh Singerman went into the dollar theaters this weekend. That's sure to rake in the cash. Why dont you look at the comparisons to Begins that SSS posted to see how big of a chunk that adds tro a film, and get back to us?

Anonymous said...

Why would we want a "better" sequel to a film that was horrific? Singer's version of Superman is unsalvageable because of plot elements from the first film, and Singer's ego wont let another film have a completely different approach from the first. What's he going to do? Change the suit, recast Lois Lane, erase Richard and the kid from existence, and make the audience forget what a mopey stalker Superman was in the first film?

Anonymous said...

yeah damnman, are we supposed to be impressed that the film opened up in dollar theaters??? The fact that you think it gives you a better chance to hit $200 million just shows how much a clueless fanboy apologist you really are. Go back to Bluetights.net and verbally felate Singer and Co.

danmankp37 said...

SSS who has twisted the numbers for months. Notice how he posts crap like SR made 100,000 less than BB and fails to mention it was in far less theatres and had a huge per theatre average. Cars made an additional 3 mil in it's dollar theatre run, it went up to 531 theatres, SR is in 410 theatres and needs less than 1.5 mil for 200. Do not try and educate me on something i have been researching all summer. SR has an excellent shot at 200 mil now, i will be happy to bury you with more stats if you would like, or you can conceed this point right now.

danmankp37 said...

yeah damnman, are we supposed to be impressed that the film opened up in dollar theaters??? The fact that you think it gives you a better chance to hit $200 million just shows how much a clueless fanboy apologist you really are. Go back to Bluetights.net and verbally felate Singer and Co.

This entire quote shows you know nothing about the BO, do some research and then talk trash to me about this buddy.

Anonymous said...

You can not compare it to BB because SR is still in some I-Max theatres. 410 theatres is a good bump and it now does have a good shot to get to 200 mil, many films with that kind of a bump have made 2 mil or more in the past.

Anonymous said...

Lets say the 286 theatres are all dollar theatres, and lets say that they average about 500 seats...So let's say they fill about 400 of those seats. In my experience with Dollar theatres they usually sell out the first couple of weeks but 400 seems like a fair estimate. So now you show SR 4 times a day in each theatre 400 * 4 =1600 dollars a day for the first weekend, but we'll just use 1 day..1600*286=457,600. Now it will most likely make this much on Saturday with about 300,000 on Friday and 200,000 on Sunday..that's a total of 957,000 just from the extra 286 dollar theatres.

This is of course just my estimate and it could end up being completely off base but I think it's a good starting point. And it does prove that dollar theatres can jump a films gross exponentially its first couple of weeks.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure SSS can answer this, but the per theater average is meaningless when the film is sitting solely in IMAX theaters. Considering IMAX tickets are almost double a normal movie ticket. Per theater averages only means anything when the movie is in mass distribution. SR was averaging less per theater than the Devil Wears Prada by the end of it's major run in cinventional cinemas. So quoting that, makes you look like a fool.

Do you realize that Batman Begins by this point in it's run had well over $200 million? And that was after adding 304 dollar theaters? You people who think a movie that has a subpar box office is suddenly going to explode in dollar theaters are kidding yourselves. Cars was a kid friendly film that made over $240 million at the US box office. Of course it would do well in dollar theaters. SR is struggling to make 80% of that film's gross and the film put children to sleep.

Anonymous said...

Well I don't think I'm kidding myself when I know it won't make what Cars made, but it will definitely provide enough of a kick to cross 200 million. And I don't care that BB is beating it, all I care is that it gets to 200 million since we had that initial report that it had to make 200 million for a sequel.

Anonymous said...

With the I-Max and the dollar theatres it is not a lock but now has a great chance to get to 200 mil. I can not take anything SSS says seriously anymore. I don't know who else noticed but in one of his other blogs he changed what he said SR would finish up at from 196 or 197 to just 197. So basically he changed the total to 197 since it is closer to what SR has made so he would not look as foolish. SSS has posted half truths about SR numbers for months. SSS has also posted constant tabloid junk on this site that he has gathered from the internet that has little to no bearing on the truth, he has no credibility in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Here is a typical discussion on this blog.

Q- Why did you not like SR?
A- Singer is a Fag and SR was GAY.

Q- What is the script, the acting?
A- Singer is a Fag and SR was GAY.

Q- How would you improve on the sequel?
A- Singer is a Fag and SR was GAY.

That about summs it up.

Anonymous said...

Here is a typical discussion on this blog.

Q- Why did you not like SR?
A- Singer is a Fag and SR was GAY.

Q- What is the script, the acting?
A- Singer is a Fag and SR was GAY.

Q- How would you improve on the sequel?
A- Singer is a Fag and SR was GAY.

That about summs it up.

This may be the truest statement this blog has ever seen.

Anonymous said...

What I don’t understand is why Singer chose to make such an overtly homosexual movie. I am all for gay rights but what Singer did is akin to Steven Spielberg making a Luke Cage movie and changing the main character into a white Jewish male, or Robert Rodriguez making a Batman movie but making Batman a Latino. All Singer did was give more ammunition to the religious right that Hollywood is pushing a homosexual agenda.

Anonymous said...

"What I don’t understand is why Singer chose to make such an overtly homosexual movie. I am all for gay rights but what Singer did is akin to Steven Spielberg making a Luke Cage movie and changing the main character into a white Jewish male, or Robert Rodriguez making a Batman movie but making Batman a Latino. All Singer did was give more ammunition to the religious right that Hollywood is pushing a homosexual agenda. "

How?

Anonymous said...

What I don’t understand is why Singer chose to make such an overtly homosexual movie. I am all for gay rights but what Singer did is akin to Steven Spielberg making a Luke Cage movie and changing the main character into a white Jewish male, or Robert Rodriguez making a Batman movie but making Batman a Latino. All Singer did was give more ammunition to the religious right that Hollywood is pushing a homosexual agenda.

Well clearly you don't understand much at all then. Let me get this straight, SR a film about a man in love with a woman, who fathered her child and then came back after 5 years is an overtly homosexual movie. Brokeback Mountain is a homosexual movie, there is nothing gay in SR whatsoever, anyone who thinks that is kidding themselves honestly.

Anonymous said...

From what I gather the haters keep saying it's gay just because of singer and the fact that Brandon Routh is a good looking guy. Which makes no sense, sinse Smallville has a guy who is even prettier than BR playing Clark Kent, and I don't remember there ever being an ugly Superman...

S.S.S. said...

It's funny how people respond to posts other users make here as if it's coming from me.
For the record, I havent changed a single thing on this blog from the day it was posted, other than noticing some egregious spelling error. It's sad that you have to resort to making things up to try and knock my credibility instead of challenging the points made with figures of your own. It's easy to take shots at a guy when you can comment with anonymity isn't it? Such is the iternet I guess.
As for posting "half truths," basically every post on this blog is linked to some kind of reputable source be it BOM, a major newspaper, or the website of an industry professional. If you're going to knock the entire blog because we had a little fun with the Bosworth/break-up story, then I suggest you get a sense of humor. If you dont like my interpretation of the B.O. figures, too bad. Get your onw blog and let's see your critical analysis of them.

Anonymous said...

Because it's easier to post conjecture and half-truths of their own? Because they "think" they are showing their "superiority" to everyone who see's how much "Singerman Peeps" sucked?

Want to know the sad part? They actually think the movie hitting $200 million is some sort of badge of honor for this travesty! Let's ignore the fact that POTC2 made more in the DOMESTIC market than "Singerman Peeps" will make WORLDWIDE.

Oh yeah, I forgot. EVERYONE who didn't see this gargabe is not as "intelligent" as they are....

Anonymous said...

Hey buddy, just so you know Pirates made more money WW than all 3 Star Wars prequels and 2 of the 3 Lord of the Rings movies. It will make almost 300 mil more WW than Spiderman 2. This was a hit of a momuemental proportions, think about what i just told you more money than all 3 Star Wars prequels, 2 of the most anticipated flicks of all time. Comparing just about any movie to Pirates is stupid with the amount of money it has made.

Anonymous said...

3 of the most anticipated my BAD!!

Anonymous said...

Actually I don't see it as a badge of honor, I readily admit it's a financial dissapointment when it failed to make 500 million which was the prediction. But the 200 million is important because of the article a couple of months back that said the movie had to make 200 million for the WB to greenlight a sequel. That's why this is a magic number.

Anonymous said...

200 mil is not a factor anymore that article came out when it was in doubt as to whether or not SR would hit 190 mil. It is less than 1.5 mil away from that total, it will at least hit 199.5 so 500 grand is not going to make up WB mind as to whether or not to do a sequel. SR will get a sequel and i actually think it will benefit from expectations not being nearly as high in 2009.

Anonymous said...

Still no report of the theatre increase? Wonder why?

Anonymous said...

In effect the blog's already done it's job since it's gotten word out about certain things with the film, and voiced the major gripes of the fans. It's also gotten noticed in certain circles that I never would've thought. So anything from here on out is gravy.

Wow so your mom's friends heard about your BLOG, she must be very proud.

Anonymous said...

As for the film having "legs." It doesnt have them and never really did. The fact that it's still sitting in 100+ IMAX theaters due to a contract isnt indicative of a film's legs.

Legs are Legs, I-Max or otherwise, that is a format that is going to get stronger as the years go on not weaker. More and more films will be utilizing it, so what none of those future films will have legs because they will make good money on I-Max. Your assessment that the film had no legs is extremely inaccurate and is not backed up by the facts. SR opened up at 52 mil first weekend and has grossed almost 199 mil so far. Was SR supposed to open bigger and make more money than it has, absolutely. However take a look at these movies opening weekends and how they finshed up. Davinci Code, opened up at 77 mil and made 217. X3 opened at 102 mil and made 234. Mission Impossible 3 opened at 47 mil and only made 133. Talledega Nights opened at 47 mil and will finish at about 150. Click opened at 40 mil and made 137. These are not figures that support your arguement one bit. If you want to keep using the I-Max as a crutch to support your arguement, go right ahead but it is pretty baseless, Another poster pointed out that Ant Bully flopped big time in both formats and that is totally accurate. Ant Bully and SR are not like other I-Max movies because they do not feature nearly as much 3D footage in them, that would draw the crowds to come see it even if they were bad movies. I don't have an issue with you not liking the movie, i myself thought it was good not great, however your assessment that it had no legs is just wrong.

Anonymous said...

Ten years from now i would say that most big budget, visually impressive movies like SR will be in the I-Max because you are correct it is going to get bigger in the years to come.

Anonymous said...

The I-Max did help SR but it is not correct to say the film did not have legs. Those numbers are pretty good indicators that it did when films like Davinci Code opened much bigger and domestically did not make a whole lot more. The detractors like SSS want to keep harping on the I-Max arguement, but truth be told Ant Bully flopping like it has does take a lot of steam out of their case. You can argue left and right about the difference in the visuals of SR and Ant Bully those are just opinions, the facts that are undisputable is that Ant-Bully on I-Max tanked and SR did not.

Anonymous said...

Did SR have legs yes it did, i say that mainly because i heard the media saying in July it might not reach 185 mil domestic. I think a lot of people had it dead and buried at the BO and it showed some surprising life late in the game. The film should have made a lot more obviously but i do think that this Genre in general may be getting played out. In a lot of ways i think the success of Spiderman was a bad thing for the genre because it opened the flood gates for Superhero movies.

Anonymous said...

"Legs are Legs, I-Max or otherwise, that is a format that is going to get stronger as the years go on not weaker. More and more films will be utilizing it, so what none of those future films will have legs because they will make good money on I-Max. Your assessment that the film had no legs is extremely inaccurate and is not backed up by the facts. SR opened up at 52 mil first weekend and has grossed almost 199 mil so far."

Superman Returns definately underachieved at the box office, however it really was doing fine in it's first week. According to Box Office Mojo, it made 108 mil in week one. Pirates then opened and made insane money and Superman slipped to just 38 mil in week 2. If you look at all the other weeks since it has leveled out fine and the drops were indicitive of a film with pretty good legs. I think if Superman had opened at a different point in the summer it would have wrapped at about 225-230 mil, still underperforming but not getting as much criticism as it has.

Anonymous said...

Singer is a FAG and Superman Returns was gay.

Anonymous said...

Singer is a FAG and Superman Returns was gay.

Man you are lucky this is a message board, face to face i would beat the shit out of your immature ASS just for the fun of it. Wait let me guess your answer is, Singer is a FAG and Superman Returns was gay, maybe you are the true faggot here.

Anonymous said...

"Singerman continued its slow painful crawl to its demise by grossing a whopping $301,373. The vast majority of that coming from the 100 or so IMAX theaters it's still sitting in per a contractual agreement."

What the fuck does that mean anyway you idiot. I can not tell if this is an outright lie or you are just painfully uninformed. Let me you clue you in, the time when theatre owners are under contract to show SR came and went a long time ago. I-max contract, all theatres have a contract to show a movie for a while I-Max or not, if if is not playing well there after a certain period of time it goes. Where it is still playing is because it is still making money there it has nothing to do with any contract. Do yourself a favor if you are going to run a blog at least tell the truth.

Anonymous said...

You know where Singer got the inspiration for the bullet in the eye scene? Well when Brandon Routh was auditioning for Singer, he decided to show him how he got the nickname "B.J.". Singer busted his nut right in Brandon's eye and Brandon didn't even flinch. Singer was so impressed by this he gave Brandon the part and wrote that scene for him.

Anonymous said...

how the fuck can you say a film has legs when it's only in 200 IMAX theaters? (before the dollar theater opening this week.)
Yeah it's showed legs on IMAX theaters, but it was a huge disappointment in standard theaters. Take that $30 million in IMAX away and this film's BO was laughable given what it cost to make and market.

Anonymous said...

Big thing here is that you can't take away those IMAX numbers..That's part of the BO and you will just have to live with it.

Anonymous said...

As someone posted earlier, the I-Max is something that is only going to get bigger in the years to come. More and more movies like SR are going to be in the I-Max and making good money on it. So what now we are going to start classifying all those movies as not having legs because they are making money on the I-Max.

Anonymous said...

Why would we want a "better" sequel to a film that was horrific? Singer's version of Superman is unsalvageable because of plot elements from the first film, and Singer's ego wont let another film have a completely different approach from the first. What's he going to do? Change the suit, recast Lois Lane, erase Richard and the kid from existence, and make the audience forget what a mopey stalker Superman was in the first film?

Oh please i heard all this crap about Star Wars Episode 1 and 2. That Lucas was wrecking the franchise, with characters like Jar Jar Binks and that Episode 2 was so bad how the hell can we have faith that Episode 3 will be any good. Guess what Lucas stepped up to the plate and delivered in Episode 3. Saying that Singer's Superman was so bad it is not salvageable is a joke, this was not Superman 4 here, which was panned by critics and bombed hugely at the BO. After Batman and Robin did anyone think just 8 years later another hit Batman movie would come out like Batman Begins. SR made money and was well liked by critics, the film has plenty going for it heading into the sequel.

Anonymous said...

so what's your point? We'll have to endure another shitty Superman film before we get a mediocre one? I can't wait.

Anonymous said...

Singer is a FAG and Superman Returns was gay.

Anonymous said...

Let me ask you guys a question just to see how honest you can be about this. Where do you rate SR in the Superman movies? If you tell me it is the worst saying you have 3 and 4 ahead of it, 2 of the worst Superhero movies ever, i will know you are nuts. I get that you hated it but it has to rank at least 3rd on the list of Superman movies, if you are remotely sane.

Anonymous said...

Oh please i don't care how much you hated SR, the effects alone have to put it ahead of 3 and 4. For god's sake Superman 4 was so cheap it looked like Superman was basically pasted on the damn screen and you could see the wires in half the shots in outer space. Superman 3 the effects for the time were good but it will be forever known as the one with Richard Pryor in it.

Anonymous said...

Superman 1....
Superman 2...
Superman Returns....
Superman 3...
Superman 4...

Superman 2 and Returns are very close in my opinion, and the only thing that makes Superman 2 better is Terrence Stamp.

Christopher Reeve will always be my number 1 Superman, but Routh handled himself very well and at times made me think I was watching Reeve again.

Anonymous said...

Superman The Movie/Superman Returns
Superman 2
Superman 4
Superman 3

The Richard Donner cut of Superman 2 from what i am hearing is going to be awesome so that may top the list after i see that in Nov. I actually did like Superman 4 better than 3 even though the effects were awful as was the story. It really is like comparing the lesser of 2 evils since they both stunk. I just hated the whole feel of Superman 3 it was dark and all over the place. Richard Pryor should have never gone near a Superman movie.

Anonymous said...

Superman The Movie
Superman 2
Superman Returns
Superman 4
Superman 3

I also heard that the Donner cut of Superman 2 is great and i am really looking forward to that as well. I did not love SR, thought it was just ok but obviously way better than 3 or 4 they were insanely BAD!!

Anonymous said...

Superman 1
Superman Returns
Superman 2
Superman 3
Superman 4

The last 2 were just embarassments, especially 4, the effects were just so bad, they should have killed that thing in pre-production.

Anonymous said...

Superman 1
Superman Returns
Superman 2
Superman 4
Superman 3

I liked SR a lot just did not love it like i had hoped, so the original is still the best for me. Superman 2 was good but i think a lot of it's flaws will be cleared up in the Donner cut coming soon. Superman 4 was really bad, awful effects and story but Superman 3 while the effects were better it's story was so BAD i had to rate it last.

Anonymous said...

SR made 403,000 this weekend in 41o theatres. Since SSS loves comparing that to BB it made 440,000 in 541 theatres when it made the switch to some dollar theatres. SR lost a lot of I-Max theatres this weekend thanks to Open Season coming out so i guess his I-Max arguement when it comes to the per theatre average just went down the toilet. Oh wait i thought SR was contractually obligated to be in the I-Max, what happened SSS did it run out finally you fan boy lying ASS CLOWN!!

Anonymous said...

It's funny how upset people get when others point out the shortcomings of this film. The fact that you have to resort to calling SSS an "ASS CLOWN" shows you to be a mindless retard. Do you have anything that shows SR lost IMAX theaters this week? Or are you just assuming that because Open Season came out, that SR lost IMAX screens? They can show more than one movie at an IMAX theater, just not simultaneously of course. The fact that your still quoting theater averages when the film is only in IMAX and dollar theaters shows you dont have a clue as to how to analyze box office figures. Do you think WB gives a flying fuck about per theater average at this point in the game?

Anonymous said...

Of course he does. HE likes the movie, so if he can kick some dirt on this site, even MADE-UP dirt, he will do it.

It KILLS some of these people that the film was a disappointment. They have a "million and one" excuses why, never looking at the FILM ITSELF.

Anonymous said...

The fact that your still quoting theater averages when the film is only in IMAX and dollar theaters shows you dont have a clue as to how to analyze box office figures.

You have to menetion the averages and the theatre count when anaylizing BO figures. You can not just throw the number out without mentioning the other factors. You got movies that open in 1000 theatres, so is that fair to say it was crushed at the BO by someting opening in 3000 theatres. I-Max are considered into the overall average just because SSS seems to rant on about how that does not count, does not make it true.

Anonymous said...

my point was that no one cares about theater average this late in the game. Theater averages mattered back in July and August when SR was still in its normal theatrical run. Now it's no longer a relevant statistic, only the total gross each day is.
Before it opened in dollar theaters this week, SR had a per theater avg of like $2300 per, it's now down to like $900, although it made more total gross this weekend. You're shooting yourself in the foot with that per theater argument at this point.

Anonymous said...

Who the hell made you the authority on what is relevant, talk to BOM and tell them to stop posting it if the damn thing is worthless.

Anonymous said...

SR made 908 average compared to BB making an average of 814, so SR is still averaging out more than BB at this point.

Anonymous said...

Didnt say I was the "authority" on the subject however anyone with a passing knowledge of the financial aspect of the film industry would tell you that the per theater average means squat to the studio once the film is out of it's normal theatrical run. Sorry to break it to you fanboy.
BOM posts the figure for informational purposes just as the post the coninued gross for films like Clerk 2, it's what their site does. I dont see anywhere on that site where they talk about the important of the per theater figure for 14 week old films do you?

Anonymous said...

FANBOY what are you 9 years old, if it means nothing to the studio explain this to me BIG GUY!!

http://www.superherohype.com/news/supermannews.php?id=4747

OOPS looks like the average at this point is important to some studios after all, do some research next time before you run your mouth!!

Anonymous said...

what is that supposed to prove? You posted WB's fluff statement about the films success in IMAX.

Apparently you're too stupid to know that doesnt prove your point about per theater averages mattering, since the article was about the total IMAX take over the 14 week period of the film with a few highlights at the end about some specific theaters overseas.

Now go shut your mouth, asshole.

Anonymous said...

Apparently you're too stupid to know that doesnt prove your point about per theater averages mattering, since the article was about the total IMAX take over the 14 week period of the film with a few highlights at the end about some specific theaters overseas.

Now go shut your mouth, asshole.

Dude you are a moron, i am not even the poster that was arguing with you and i can see you just lost this arguement. You said the studios do not care about the averages at this point, well unless you are too stupid to know what the term INFER means that is exactly what this article is saying. Saying it is just WB's spin on it is stupid. You said to the poster no studio cares about the averages at this point and this article says WB does care, so get a clue will ya.

Anonymous said...

I didnt lose anything, apparently your just as much of an idiot.

it's talking about the IMAX per screen average SINCE THE FILM WAS RELEASED in late June.

How on God's green Earth does that contradict my point that now that the film is out of it's run in regular theaters all together, the per screen averages from the past few weekends are meaningless???

Anonymous said...

How on God's green Earth does that contradict my point that now that the film is out of it's run in regular theaters all together, the per screen averages from the past few weekends are meaningless???

Says you jackASS, your point was that movie studios do not care about the averages at this point. This article i posted says otherwise, so give it up. You are gonna say it is WB spin on it well that the hell do you want another studios take on WB's movie. Obvioulsy WB still cares about the averages, your I-Max arguement is pathetic because clearly WB does still care and you said that they didn't.

Anonymous said...

keep hammering home the point that your a moron.

Let me make this kindergarten clear for you since this seems to be the level you function on. MY initial comment was that theater averages matter when the film is in it's major run in theaters. For SR trhis would've been the first 9 or 10 weeks. By the time it comes out of those theaters and is only sitting in IMAX and/or doillar theaters, the statistic doesnt matter since the film is in so few theaters to begin with, at this point in the film's life cycle only the total gross it's making each weekend matters.
You keep pointing to that article whcih is touting ONLY the film's run in IMAX over the ENTIRE LIFE OF THE FILM.
Do you now see the difference between the two? Or do you need visual aids?

Anonymous said...

You keep pointing to that article whcih is touting ONLY the film's run in IMAX over the ENTIRE LIFE OF THE FILM.
Do you now see the difference between the two? Or do you need visual aids?


No the article is discussing both the life of the film on I-Max and it's most recent totals. It is your view that Studios do not care at this point. You have a biased view of the I-Max format, a format more and more movies will be using in the future. Saying that the I-Max averages mean nothing when WB is saying that they do is just your view of things it is not based on FACT.

Anonymous said...

You both make good points, neither one of you is really wrong here. Generally speaking once a film is out of it's regular theatre run nobody cares about the averages anymore. However the I-Max is a very popular format now and SR did show good legs on it even late into it's run so it would make sense that they would still care about theose totals.

Anonymous said...

It's all about the remaining grosses once it's out of its run in common theaters. Per theater averages are looked at in all theaters as a gauge when the film is in mass distribution, but it's pretty much meaningless the past couple weeks since the totals are skewed by solely being in IMAX, where tickets cost twice as much as regualr tickets in most place, and now in dollar theaters, where tickets cost a dollar.
SR actually made more $$ this weekend than last even though it's per theater average went down by more than 50%.

Anonymous said...

With more and more movies now hitting the I-Max screen those totals and averages are no longer meaningless. It is simply a matter of changing times. in 10 years without a doubt almost every big budget visually impressive movie will be on the I-Max. Movie studios and the GEN public are not going to ignore those totals.

Anonymous said...

Thats is true I-Max is only going to get bigger and bigger in the years to come, so people will not be able to continue to discount it.

Anonymous said...

"Assuming Singerman could get back to the level where it's making the same each weekend as Begins, (instead of trailing behind by about 32%) it still would fall short of the $200 million mark domestic, the alleged "make or break point," with a total gross of $199,644,950. Assuming Singerman stays 32% behind Begins income level, it would end up at around $199,261,623."

SSS you are really bad at making BO predictions you know that. You said a while ago it would die out between 196 and 197, well that did not happen. Here you are predicting it should die out between 199.2 and 199.6. SR will pass 199.6 this weekend and with still a few weeks left in its dollar run will definitely pass 200 mil.

Anonymous said...

Ah, another genius at work here. Singerman Peeps doesn't have a "few weeks" left. It comes out on DVD in around 5 weeks. It will be GONE from theaters by next weekend. Count on it.

Anonymous said...

"Ah, another genius at work here. Singerman Peeps doesn't have a "few weeks" left. It comes out on DVD in around 5 weeks. It will be GONE from theaters by next weekend. Count on it."

Yeah see ya next weekend when it is still in theatres dipshit.

Anonymous said...

"Ah, another genius at work here. Singerman Peeps doesn't have a "few weeks" left. It comes out on DVD in around 5 weeks. It will be GONE from theaters by next weekend. Count on it."

Do you haters actually bother to do any reseacrh before you go mouthing off at people. Buddy SR will be in the dollar theatres for a few weeks yet. Want an example here is one for ya Batman Begins was in dollar theatres until Oct, 30th, it was out on DVD on Oct 18th. Want another one, Madagascar was out on DVD on Nov, 15th and still in a few dollar theatres on Nov, 20th. I could give you countless other examples but i hope you have gotten the clue at this point. Do some research next time fella. You are welcome to look it up yourself if you think i am full of shit.

Anonymous said...

You "Apologists" are S-A-D. Want to know the difference between Batman Begins and this turd? NO bad word of mouth for BB. Singerman Peeps? Well, the BO tells THAT story, doesn't it?

It's funny how the "dollar-theater run" is somehow something the "Apologists" are toting out as a sign this film ISN'T trash. Guess what ladies? You FAILED.

Anonymous said...

"You "Apologists" are S-A-D. Want to know the difference between Batman Begins and this turd? NO bad word of mouth for BB. Singerman Peeps? Well, the BO tells THAT story, doesn't it?"

Dumbass, the BO tells the story huh well SR has made almost 20 mil WW more than BB. If you choose to scream about the budget for SR, that will not prove your case because it has nothing to do with the people who saw the film. More people have seen SR than BB in theatres so your arguement about word of mouth is WRONG!!

Anonymous said...

"Dumbass, the BO tells the story huh well SR has made almost 20 mil WW more than BB. If you choose to scream about the budget for SR, that will not prove your case because it has nothing to do with the people who saw the film. More people have seen SR than BB in theatres so your arguement about word of mouth is WRONG!!"

SR opened bigger than BB and will make about 5 mil less domestic. SR had to deal with Pirates all summer though and BB did not have major competition last summer. SR making more money WW in the wake of much steeper competition, shows it did have legs, just not the kind of legs it was expected to have.

Anonymous said...

"Dumbass, the BO tells the story huh well SR has made almost 20 mil WW more than BB. If you choose to scream about the budget for SR, that will not prove your case because it has nothing to do with the people who saw the film. More people have seen SR than BB in theatres so your arguement about word of mouth is WRONG!"

Hey, shit-for-brains, this film had HORRIBLE word of mouth. Want to know the difference between this turd and Batman Begins? Batman had it's last sequel only 5 years ago, and it was BAD. So a lot of people stayed away, lumping BB with the previous series.

Superman, on the other hand, has not had a film in almost 20 YEARS. And what does BS choose to do? LUMP IT IN WITH THE OTHER SERIES. What did we get? Singerman Peeps.

And also jackass, BB did NOT have a 3D run that brought in an extra $30 million dollars. So, subtract that and BB has made $10 million MORE than Singerman. Stick that up your ass and ride it.

Anonymous said...

"Hey, shit-for-brains, this film had HORRIBLE word of mouth. Want to know the difference between this turd and Batman Begins? Batman had it's last sequel only 5 years ago, and it was BAD. So a lot of people stayed away, lumping BB with the previous series."

Shit for brains hey jackass Batman and Robin came out 8 years before BB not 5, you retard.

Anonymous said...

Superman, on the other hand, has not had a film in almost 20 YEARS. And what does BS choose to do? LUMP IT IN WITH THE OTHER SERIES. What did we get? Singerman Peeps.

And also jackass, BB did NOT have a 3D run that brought in an extra $30 million dollars. So, subtract that and BB has made $10 million MORE than Singerman. Stick that up your ass and ride it.


I love how the haters when told that it's done better than BB WW always bring up the IMAX...Doesn't matter if you want to take the 30 million out of the total, because in real life that will always be included and SR will always have outperformed BB's. You can spin it all you want but the truth is SR will go down in BO history as beating BB worldwide...Just as BB will beat SR Domestic, SR defeats BB.

Anonymous said...

LOL, you "Apologists" accuse OTHERS of "spin"? You idiots LIVE on "spin".

You CAN take off the IMAX, because they BOTH did not have it. Is that too hard for your pea-brain to understand? It's like fighting someone with 2 arms, while you have 1 tied behind your back. Should that be considered a "fair fight"? No, dickhead, it wouldn't. Plus, which cost more? Which will have a higher percentage of profit? Yeah, bitch. Owned.

Batman Begins had a sequel greenlit IMMEDIATELY. When is Singerman Peeps going to get that treatment? You "Apologists" think you "won" a battle, but the "Realists" have won the war..

Anonymous said...

You CAN take off the IMAX, because they BOTH did not have it. Is that too hard for your pea-brain to understand? It's like fighting someone with 2 arms, while you have 1 tied behind your back. Should that be considered a "fair fight"? No, dickhead, it wouldn't. Plus, which cost more? Which will have a higher percentage of profit? Yeah, bitch. Owned.

Batman Begins had a sequel greenlit IMMEDIATELY. When is Singerman Peeps going to get that treatment? You "Apologists" think you "won" a battle, but the "Realists" have won the war..

Both BB and SR were in I-Max look it up. The sequel to BB was not green light until recently. There was the same speculation about it for a long time just like there is now for the Superman Returns sequel. The actual announcement of it making it official was not until recently though. You haters need to stop with the I-Max excuse for SR BO. If you guys are allowed to tell us to shut up about Pirates costing SR a shit load of money, then shut up about the I-Max already.

Anonymous said...

LOL, Batman Begins had a sequel greenlit MONTHS ago. What rock have you been hiding under??

And Batman Begins did NOT have a 3-D run in IMAX, genius. That SHOULDN'T have to be pointed out when referenced.

And Pirates "costing" Singerman money is a cop-out. WB picked that date, didn't they? The "movie gods" didn't force it on them, did they? You "Apologists" just need to shut-up PERIOD.

Anonymous said...

"LOL, Batman Begins had a sequel greenlit MONTHS ago. What rock have you been hiding under??"

Apparently i am seeing much more daylight than your dumb ass. You said BB had a sequel immediately green-lighted. Well it came out in June of 2005 and got a sequel greenlight just a few months ago, that is what you call immediate.

Anonymous said...

And Pirates "costing" Singerman money is a cop-out. WB picked that date, didn't they? The "movie gods" didn't force it on them, did they? You "Apologists" just need to shut-up PERIOD.

Oh so we are copping out because we mention the gorilla of the summer coming out the next fucking week, but you are just A-OK when you try and take out the IMAX numbers to make your arguement..Hypocritical much?

Anonymous said...

"Oh so we are copping out because we mention the gorilla of the summer coming out the next fucking week, but you are just A-OK when you try and take out the IMAX numbers to make your arguement..Hypocritical much?"

exactly, the haters want to believe that Pirates opening 7 days after SR, going on to gross the 3rd highest WW total of all time had nothing to do with SR underperforming. Yeah competition and timing in business has very little to do with profitability, at least according to most of the haters.

Anonymous said...

I don't even mind the fact that they want to ignore that, but if they are going to tell us that we are insane, then they are just as insane to keep insisting that the movie actually didn't beat BB WW total because they don't want to include the IMAX totals...Like it or not IMAX made alot of money for SR and that money made it beat BB's total..That money can't be taken away. It's there and it will always be there, and SR will always outgross BB's WW...

Anonymous said...

I don't care what the hell these haters say. Come 2009 when the sequel is more action packed and less of a love story, so many of these haters will be flocking to the I-Max to go and see it. All this nonsense how Singer ruined the character and it is unsalvageable is bullshit. There are countless examples of sub par movies who's sequels made by the same director were vastly superior.

Anonymous said...

"I don't care what the hell these haters say. Come 2009 when the sequel is more action packed and less of a love story, so many of these haters will be flocking to the I-Max to go and see it. All this nonsense how Singer ruined the character and it is unsalvageable is bullshit. There are countless examples of sub par movies who's sequels made by the same director were vastly superior."

LOL. You "Apologists" are pathetic. "IF there is a sequel, and IF it is more "action packed" EVERYONE will go see it." Keep dreaming, dickwads. You assholes were spouting the same shit before THIS turd came out.