Based on their initial
review that described Singerman as both "creepy" and "sinister," it's apparent that, like many people,
filmthreat.com wasn't all that impressed with the film when it opened either. We here at SSS feel their pain. But Film Threat is still poking fun at Singerman as evidence by their latest 2006 list identifying the
50 Coldest People in Hollywood. They explain...
Unlike those other lists aimed at browning the most nose, the Frigid 50 is a written declaration of who or what in Hollywood needs a reality check, detailing the least-powerful, least-inspiring, least-intriguing people in all of Tinseltown. Before celebrities fall off the face of the Earth, they get one warning, and the Frigid 50 is it.
Throw up a big middle-finger to the Hollywood "Power" lists and enjoy Film Threat's Frigid 50: The Coldest People in Hollywood 2006!
Here's numbers 27 & 28...
27. Bryan Singer
You left the "X-Men" franchise to collapse under the weight of its own failed expectations (and Brett Ratner), and you brought a "Superman" film to the multiplexes that re-imagined the Man of Steel as a peeping Tom obsessed with Lois Lane (and little else). Whatever comic book credibility you had disappeared the second Lex Luthor threw the first crystal into the water.
Anti-Freeze: Quit the "Superman" franchise too, show you're nothing if not randomly insubordinate.
28. Brandon Routh
Look, up there in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's - a flash in the pan? The new Superman didn't quite leap the A-list in a single bound. The lack of public enthusiasm for Routh might suggest the Curse of the Red Cape struck a bit early in his career.
Anti-Freeze: Show an emotion. Smile, frown, something so we know that you're real.
At this point, to say we agree is probably
superfluous.
Based on their initial review that described Singerman as both "creepy" and "sinister," it's apparent that, like many people, filmthreat.com wasn't all that impressed with the film when it opened either. We here at SSS feel their pain. But Film Threat is still poking fun at Singerman as evidence by their latest 2006 list identifying the 50 Coldest People in Hollywood. They explain...
40 comments:
Anybody else find it funny that they told brandon to smile so that they would know he was alive, and then posted a picture of him..you know....smiling?
That whole list was hilarious!!!!!
I think the humor in it is that smile of Routh's seems about as sincere as the one on the mannequin. Then again, I cant tell which one is which.
Funny list, and they're right. Routh has the charisma of a janitor's mop. Also got a good laugh about the comments about Dane Cook.
Man some of you guys are way too hard on Routh. From what i have seen he is a nice guy and i read he does all sorts of charity work. I really thought he did well in SR with what he had to work with.
Man they really go to town on some celebs on that list. This is not something you would ever find in a magazine like EW or Variety. They would be too afraid to piss those people off. Look at what they said about Colin Farrell.
51. Colin Farrell
It’s been two years since his penis made the Frigid 50, and it looks like he finally followed his prodigious member into the room. Colin joins the Frigid this year as the question remains: how does he do it? He makes bomb (“The Recruit”) after bomb (“S.W.A.T.”) after bomb (“The New World”) after bomb (“Alexander”), yet he still commands big salaries and media attention.
I don't get how they classify SWAT as a bomb when it made 117 mil at the BO. The film did not have huge expectations. Also in 2004's list they were trashing Will Smith for being in I-Robot and Shark Tale, both of those were BO hits as well.
LOL, EW predicted that SR would be the biggest film of the summer (WRONG!). And at the end of the summer Variety has an exposé that detailed why SR was a financial disaster for Time Warner.
I can't wait til the next Singerman comes out and it gets killed by another 35 million dollar Ann HAthaway film.
Batman Forever,Batman and Robin=Superman Returns, Superman: The Man of Steel
I'm happy to hear that Routh is a "nice" buy and does all kinds of charity work, not sure how that relates to him playing Supes?? By that logic Mother Theresa wouldve been the best SUperman ever...
"I'm happy to hear that Routh is a "nice" buy and does all kinds of charity work, not sure how that relates to him playing Supes?? By that logic Mother Theresa wouldve been the best SUperman ever..."
Which is why i said i thought he did fine with what he had to work with. BR to me was not the reason SR did not make a billion dollars at the BO. Not enough action, a bad marketing campaign, Pirates and way too high expactations i believe were the real reasons. Singer did not give him much dialogue, it is hard to put your stamp on something with such limited material.
"LOL, EW predicted that SR would be the biggest film of the summer (WRONG!). And at the end of the summer Variety has an exposé that detailed why SR was a financial disaster for Time Warner."
True but those magazines would never insult celebs like they are doing on this list. I mean read through the whole thing. they are attacking with childish insults some of the biggest names in hollywood. This is funny but it is still more of a tabloid type article, nothing more.
"Batman Forever,Batman and Robin=Superman Returns, Superman: The Man of Steel"
Well that is i guess your personal opinion but Batman Forever was a big hit, way bigger than Batman Begins.
As much as i was dissapointed at SR i still have hopes for 2009 and the sequel. Hell i hated SW episode 2 and loved 3, so i am willing to give Superman another shot.
Apples and Oranges. SW Ep 3 had a definite ending point, in that it had to lineup with "A New Hope." While I still feel episode 3 was disappointing, it's best parts were the parts that attached it to "a new hope" i.e. Anakin becoming vader, birth of luke & leia, creation of the empire, etc.
Singer doesnt have another great film to tie this sequel into b/c it's not a prequel.
Hell Episode 3 sucked or do you forget " I want to turn to the darkside to save padme so its OK to kill kids"....KILL CHILDREN....if someone killed your kid would you have redemtion in mind. Or "She lost the will to live though in the other prequels she kicked butt and took names." Must not care where here kids are adopted out too. As a mother I found boths these points abhorant.
thats great, albeit totally irrelevant to what we're discussing on this blog.
Well that is i guess your personal opinion but Batman Forever was a big hit, way bigger than Batman Begins.
^^^
BATMAN FOREVER Domestic Total Gross: $184,031,112
BATMAN BEGINSDomestic Total Gross: $205,343,774
"BATMAN FOREVER Domestic Total Gross: $184,031,112
BATMAN BEGINSDomestic Total Gross: $205,343,774"
I should have been clearer, you have to factor in the inflation. The true measure of success of a film is it's tickets sold. Batman forever comes in at a little over 271 mil with inflation, compared to BB 205 mil.
The true measure of a film's success is its profit margin.
Batman Forever made $336M WW and cost $100 million to make and I dont know how much to market/advertise.
Batman Begins made $371M WW and cost about $150 million to make and about $50 million to market/advertise.
If Batman Forever cost less than $65M to market/advertise it would have a higher profit margin. If it cost more than it's got a lower one.
"The true measure of a film's success is its profit margin.
Batman Forever made $336M WW and cost $100 million to make and I dont know how much to market/advertise.
Batman Begins made $371M WW and cost about $150 million to make and about $50 million to market/advertise.
If Batman Forever cost less than $65M to market/advertise it would have a higher profit margin. If it cost more than it's got a lower one."
You just ignored inflation again which is something mathematically you simply can not do. 336 mil WW Once you add in the inflation is closer to 500 mil. BB cost 100 mil to market not 50, here is one of many links that will confirm that.
http://www.3dstereo.com/viewmaster/vbp-7337.html
"You just ignored inflation again which is something mathematically you simply can not do. 336 mil WW Once you add in the inflation is closer to 500 mil. BB cost 100 mil to market not 50, here is one of many links that will confirm that."
That's correct which is why comparing SR to BB works so well since BB just came out in the Summer of 05, the inflation is not a factor yet. Your right it is about tickets sold, not about how much the tickets cost at that time.
What is this blog about Batman Forever and Batman Begins now? If we’re taking about production budgets, advertising cost and then total and gross, with respect to these two things Superman Returns is a huge failure. There’s no changing or dodging the point on that.
"What is this blog about Batman Forever and Batman Begins now? If we’re taking about production budgets, advertising cost and then total and gross, with respect to these two things Superman Returns is a huge failure. There’s no changing or dodging the point on that."
So is BB not as big a failure as SR but it's still a failure and needed to make it's money back in DVD sales. The other poster is right by the way, anyway you slice it BF is more profitable than BB. Inflation can not be ignored if you have a brain in your head.
While looking at the picture, I am having a hard time being able to seperate the mannequin from the dummy.
You just ignored inflation again which is something mathematically you simply can not do. 336 mil WW Once you add in the inflation is closer to 500 mil. BB cost 100 mil to market not 50, here is one of many links that will confirm that.
Actually you dont take inflation into account when looking profit margins.
Inflation is used for adjusting grosses to compare films made in different years.
Profit margin is the % of the film's profit/loss after it's theatrical run. It's a point in time figure of how the studio does the financials for a film. Basically how it's put into their books. That figures not injusted for inflation because it's a ratio of profit to cost at the time. You dont take inflatrion into account b/c the studio never sees that "inflated" income or the inflated costs, and also since inflation is omni-present it has the same impact on the grosses as it would on the costs, so the ratio should remain semi-constant.
If a film has a profit margin in 1994 of 20% thats usually an indicator that financially it was more successful than a film made in 2006 with a profit margin of 10% even if the 2006 had higher grosses.
"Actually you dont take inflation into account when looking profit margins.
Inflation is used for adjusting grosses to compare films made in different years.
Profit margin is the % of the film's profit/loss after it's theatrical run. It's a point in time figure of how the studio does the financials for a film. Basically how it's put into their books. That figures not injusted for inflation because it's a ratio of profit to cost at the time. You dont take inflatrion into account b/c the studio never sees that "inflated" income or the inflated costs, and also since inflation is omni-present it has the same impact on the grosses as it would on the costs, so the ratio should remain semi-constant."
SSS of course you factor inflation into the equation. 336 mil WW in 1995 was worth a hell of a lot more money then compared to 2006. Obviously they don't see that inflated money of the years they don't have to because it was worth the equivalent of 500 mil back in 1995. WB could buy a lot more with their cut of that 336 mil WW, in 1995 then they could today. This is just basic economics.
Wow wb is just stupid. They should go back to the drawing board and do superman right instead of giving this clown singer another go at fucking superman up. Ohhhh crap, here we go again...
"Wow wb is just stupid. They should go back to the drawing board and do superman right instead of giving this clown singer another go at fucking superman up. Ohhhh crap, here we go again..."
Well they have invested so much money into this, they are not going to go back to the drawing board again. I doubt they will do an origin story with Superman again, anytime soon. Basically everyone knows his origin, it really has been done to death.
WB dig themselves into a hole with Singerman, creativity and economically. It wouldn’t make any sense for them at this point to reboot in a new direction with all the sunk cost SR accumulated. All they can do now is hope that the sour taste from SR doesn’t deter people from seeing the next adventures of Supes and his superkid Jason (Which Singer has said will have a bigger role in the next film.
SSS of course you factor inflation into the equation. 336 mil WW in 1995 was worth a hell of a lot more money then compared to 2006. Obviously they don't see that inflated money of the years they don't have to because it was worth the equivalent of 500 mil back in 1995. WB could buy a lot more with their cut of that 336 mil WW, in 1995 then they could today. This is just basic economics.
You're missing the point and essentially posted the same thing I just refuted in my last post.
Inflation is a factor when you're comparing a film's grosses in different years. That's not what I was doing. I was point out the % profit made by each film. Inflation is irrelevant to THAT profit margin equation.
When WB looks at Batman Forever and say for arguments sake it had a 25% profit margin, and then looks at Batman Begins and sees it had a 30% profit margin (again for sake of argument) it considers Begins more successful since it was more profitable for the studio at the time the film's came out. Sure if Forever came out this year with inflation it would've made more money, but that's irrelevant to the studios bottom line since thats a figurative statistic and a cost never realized. That's basically the economics of it all.
Which Singer has said will have a bigger role in the next film.
Where did Singer ever say this about the sequel? The only think i've seen him say is that he wants to go Wrath of Khan on the sequel..
"When WB looks at Batman Forever and say for arguments sake it had a 25% profit margin, and then looks at Batman Begins and sees it had a 30% profit margin (again for sake of argument) it considers Begins more successful since it was more profitable for the studio at the time the film's came out. Sure if Forever came out this year with inflation it would've made more money, but that's irrelevant to the studios bottom line since thats a figurative statistic and a cost never realized. That's basically the economics of it all."
You keep putting a percentage on the profit margin. That is all well and good but the fact remains that BF 25% was worth far more in terms of profit than BB 30% because of the inflation. You still are wrong by the way about BB profit margin, they spent 100 mil on the marketing not 50 i gave a link to back that up and i have several more to confirm that figure as well. Your 30% is not accurate BB was in the red in terms of it's theatrical run. Nomatter what way you slice it BF is the far more profitable film. Inflation is a fact you can not ignore, this is not a matter of opinion. Take SR okay, compare that to the original Superman movie released in 1978. That made 134 mil at the BO, which is about 400 mil today. SR made 200 mil, obviously the far more successful film was STM and not SR. Essentially what you are doing is saying something with a 25% profit margin in 1978 is the same as far as the studio is concerned as it is in 2006. How the hell does that make any sense when the anount of money that the 25% profit margin in 1978 is worth far exceeds that of what it buys in 2006?
"How the hell does that make any sense when the anount of money that the 25% profit margin in 1978 is worth far exceeds that of what it buys in 2006?"
It makes no sense at all you are 100% right. STM cost something like 50 mil to make. That buys you next to nothing in terms of effects these days. The 134 mil domestic that STM made in 1978 was a huge hit. Today the 200 mil that SR made is considered a failure since it cost 204 mil to make. When a 25% profit margin in 1978 makes you rich and famous compared to a 25% profit margin today, it is pretty obvious what the more profitable film was.
Where did Singer ever say this about the sequel? The only think i've seen him say is that he wants to go Wrath of Khan on the sequel.
^^^
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=380217
Inside the party, Bryan Singer could be overheard suggesting the sequel will be two hours and seven minutes with lots of action. He also promised to give Tristan Lake Leabu, who plays the young superkid, a lot to do.
Inside the party, Bryan Singer could be overheard suggesting the sequel will be two hours and seven minutes with lots of action. He also promised to give Tristan Lake Leabu, who plays the young superkid, a lot to do.
LOL....So Singer before he has even written the script knows exactly how long the movie is going to be...lol.. Sounds to me like somebody just reporting bullshit.
Your 30% is not accurate BB was in the red in terms of it's theatrical run. Nomatter what way you slice it BF is the far more
I guess you missed the part where I said "FOR ARGUMENT"S SAKE" I made a figure as an example.
You keep repeating the same argument about inflation, but it's not a factor in the profit margin. I dont know how many other ways I can say it to make it clearer for you?
Essentially what you are doing is saying something with a 25% profit margin in 1978 is the same as far as the studio is concerned as it is in 2006. How the hell does that make any sense when the anount of money that the 25% profit margin in 1978 is worth far exceeds that of what it buys in 2006?
No thats what NOT what I'm saying at all, you're putting words in my mouth or just completely misunderstanding since you seem to be arguing a point that I didnt make. Profit margin is a POINT IN TIME figure. It's what the studio books for a film when all is said and done and how ultimatley a film is judged successful or not. That was my original comment. Why do you think we keep getting all of these awful horror movies lately? They dont make a ton of money but % wise they make a ton of profit. They're successful because they're extremely profitable even though they dont have outlandish gross figures. They're just really cheap to make. Inflation is irrelevant to that figure. I dont know how many other ways to say it.
[Singer] He also promised to give Tristan Lake Leabu, who plays the young superkid, a lot to do.
If Singer has final say over the product, this probably isn't too off point. HA, HA.
Singer Supes is today’s equivalent of Schumacher’ Bats.
Except for the fact that Forever was a success when it spawned it’s sequel unlike Singerman.
BF and Batman and Robin both sucked, SR was way better than those movies. SR was not up there with Spiderman or Batman begins, but Batman and Robin was probably the worst superhero movie of all time.
"Batman and Robin was probably the worst superhero movie of all time."
Oh i think that is pretty much universally accepted as the worst of all time. I mean the movie was awful enough but when Batgirl showed up, that is when i walked out of the theatre.
"Well they have invested so much money into this, they are not going to go back to the drawing board again. I doubt they will do an origin story with Superman again, anytime soon. Basically everyone knows his origin, it really has been done to death."
Oh, you mean that Superman the Movie already did it? Lots of characters get re-booted origins, even in the comics. In fact, Superman's origin ITSELF was rebooted in 2004 with Superman: Birthright, and if they had made THAT into a movie then WB wouldn't be worrying about profits right now OR pissed off SUPERMAN FANS! The fact is, that there have been a few Superman origin stories in pop culture... BUT none of them have been done RIGHT. Donner's version was different from the comics, the animated series version was different from the comics... etc.
Show us a COMIC version origin story, ala Batman Begins and you are onto something an audience can ACTUALLY BE EXCITED ABOUT and can sink it's teeth into. Isn't that WHY they got Singer in the first place? To go in the same direction as Begins... Boy did they screw up that one.
-cgeer15
"Show us a COMIC version origin story, ala Batman Begins and you are onto something an audience can ACTUALLY BE EXCITED ABOUT and can sink it's teeth into. Isn't that WHY they got Singer in the first place? To go in the same direction as Begins... Boy did they screw up that one."
Since SR outgrossed BB they couldn't have screwed up that much.
Since they spent about $50-60 million MORE to make Singerman Peeps, you couldn't be more wrong. Batman Begins is more PROFITABLE than Singerman Peeps. Take off the Apologist glasses and use common-sense.
Post a Comment