Several of the major media outlets (besides those owned by WB) have done year end pieces about the 2006 movies and of course Singerman. Here's a look at what's being said at the end of the year in which Superman was supposed to return, but all we got was this lousy t-shirt.- Detroit Free Press - "For nine months, the cabal that is Hollywood has an unspoken agreement that it will release no film of actual greatness, unless, of course, it also happens to also be of great commercial potential. That is why "Superman Returns" (which failed to live up to its moneymaking potential, perhaps because it was too subtle) and "Cars" were released this summer."
- Santa Cruz Sentinel (CA) - But "Pirates" covered up the colossal failure of another sure-fire Hollywood franchise. "Superman Returns" exploded onto the scene in June and quickly sank into irrelevance.
- Blogcritics Magazine - Superman Returns - a ridiculous story to feature the return of Supes.
- The Toronto Sun - "Look past the eye-popping $1-billion US bounty hauled in by Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and you'll see a horizon scattered with costly letdowns -- from the barely broke-even Superman Returns to the utterly disastrous Poseidon."
- The Decatur Daily (AL) - "Two icons returned this year, one with renewed relevance, the other creaking under his own pretensions. Strangely, James Bond, the character who shouldn't work divorced from his Cold War origins, showed new energy. Meanwhile, the supposedly timeless Superman, remained as stiff and lifeless as ever, not so much the Man of Steel as the man of rigor mortis."
- The Joliet Herald News (IL) - "Who needs kryptonite? "Superman Returns," one of the year's most anticipated movies, quietly falls to earth. Not that that has stopped Hollywood from greenlighting a sequel." (SSS note: The sequel hasn't been greenlit yet, Singer was just signed to develop one.)
- St. Petersburg Times (FL) - "Don’t go overboard with the Champagne, though. Too many sequels, remakes and knockoffs still take up too much megaplex space and public attention. But consumers seem to be wising up a bit — just ask Superman, if he returns again."
- Jam! Showbiz (Canada) - "Or that Brandon Routh, touted just 12 months ago for super-stardom as soon as he was announced as the new Man of Steel in Superman Returns, would remain more anonymous than not in the first days of 2007 after the would-be blockbuster sputtered more than soared?"
- Miami Herald (FL) - Best self-indulgent directorial flourish: The "Heart and Soul" sequence in Bryan Singer's Superman Returns: Menacing tattoos, a fax, chopsticks on the piano, and the movies' first appearance of Superboy.
- St. Petersburg Times (Russia) - "Meanwhile, “Superman Returns” was on the edge of being imbecilic and it seemed like it was made for 10-year-olds to watch while their moms run errands."
- Australia - "Superman Returns" should have performed well Down Under because it was lensed in Sydney but film did not even make the top 10, returning $11 million, well shy of the $15.5 million indicated by the 10% rule.
- Germany - Underachievers at the Teutonic box office include "Superman Returns," which made only $4 million. In Germany, comicbook heroes face a never-ending battle for cinematic recognition.
- Mexico - Still, Mexicans this year didn't like their American superheroes to be bland: "Superman Returns" for one slumped at local wickets.
- Italy - Hollywood titles that elsewhere had been summer films but were Italo fall releases played below par, such as "Superman Returns" ($7 million) and "Miami Vice" ($4.4 million).
- France - Below par were "Miami Vice" ($12 million), "Superman Returns" ($11.5 million), "Cars" and "Happy Feet."
- Hong Kong - Top 10 films "Superman," "X-Men 3" and "Cars" all arguably underperformed against expectations -- as did bomb of the year "Poseidon."
A happy and safe new year to all of you out there! Yes, even you Bryan.
77 comments:
Oh my heart, I'm having palpatations! My heart has a murmur, SSS! Take me to the hospital! Say it isn't so? People think the return of superman was imbecillic? Very good word choice. I truly felt like my brain was being tortured when I first saw the poor attempt to repackage Superman 1 in a superboy movie. And I'm not usually that discerning with entertainment choices since I like silly cartoons and such. Returns however was below par in almost every aspect. I couldn't see anything, the story was retarded, the acting was unremarkable by everyone but spacey who was on autopilot. And get better writers for the sequel if there is one.
Yeah, there WON'T be new writers, since the "Wonder Twins" are BS' "boys". They are "yes-men" through and through, and will follow orders like all good "yes-men" do. I really do think these negative reactions ARE going to get WB to see a little bit of the "light", and change what will be done IF a BS sequel is made. My money is still on him bowing out before production.
It truly is amazing just how badly a film can suffer from the weight of it's own expectations. I have never seen a film make 200 mil that has been more beat down by the media than this movie. I mean you have publications that gave it good reviews that have in the months since jumped all over it because it failed to meet it's own BO expectations. Hell i thought years ago this may happen to SW Episode 1. The reviews were bad, the movie was subpar and the expectations were through the roof. Somehow that movie managed to weather the storm and make a shitload of money. I think if not for Spiderman's success SR would have had so much pressure put on it to perform at that level. Ultimately i think Singer gets another chance, he does seem to really want to keep going so i am betting he will do the sequel.
"Ultimately i think Singer gets another chance, he does seem to really want to keep going so i am betting he will do the sequel."
Fortunately for us, BS had his chance to do what he "wants" and failed. When the studio starts to demand things get changed, budget constraints and their OWN writers, BS WILL "bow out".
I am not sure if Singer bows out that a sequel will even get made. There will be a ton of pressure for any director to come in and do it because they will be going off of what Singer did in SR. I am sure that if Singer goes, Spacey will go with him since they are such good friends, so that may influence WB decision to leave him alone as well. I think Singer does the movie if it is a hit they may do a third and if it is not we won't see Superman for probably another 20 years.
If they are going to make a sequel, it will get done with or without BS. And who says it HAS to follow what BS did? The new Hulk movie will completely ignore Ang's "artistic" take, and go in a new direction. Superman can and WILL survive Singerman Peeps, and it will NOT be 20 years in between.
Seriously, the "BS or 20 years" attitude is COMPLETELY ludicrous. Was it 20 years in-between Batman and Robin and Batman Begins? No, no it wasn't.
First off your hatred of the film is causing you to greatly overstate SR lack of success. This is not Superman 4, which was so bad and performed so lousy everyone knew the franchise was dead. If BB is alive and well then SR which outgrossed it is far from a dead franchise with Singer at the helm. Singer needs to change his approach, more action, less romance, no more Donner nods and a Supervillain is a must but there is potential with this franchise going forward.
It'd be a superboy franchise. You do realize this, right?
The yardstick that SR was held to by studio heads and the media was not Batman Begins but the Spiderman series.
If they had actually held Supes to Batman then they damn hell would not have let Singer and co. go past 150 million dollars on his vision, let alone, let it go past 200 million dollars before the cost of failed projects.
See, the "Apologist" blinders are STILL on most of these people.
Mention Batman Begins anywhere NEAR Singerman Peeps and it becomes the focus. I mentioned Batman Begins ONLY in regards to the gap in-between a bad movie, and Singerman Peeps is BAD, and a GOOD movie.
And to shoot a hole in your "Defense", Batman Begins cost about $100 million LESS to make, so it was more SUCCESSFUL. Use common-sense occasionally, it will improve your intelligence.
BB sucked compared to superman. Chris Nolan this Chris Nolan that actually more people saw superman returns. Also Superman was a view once movie because it had a lot of feeling. Trust me in a few months this site will be dead and Superman will be in preproduciton.
that's funny considering the interest in this website, especially by the "apologists" has far exceeded their interest in the actual Singerman film.
for the final time, BB outgrossed Singerman domestically. I dont give a rat's ass about the WW box office since that's not what matters for a sequel. (Notice how there was no sequel talk until WB finally, painstakingly coaxed the film over $200M, despite how "well" the film did overseas (although this article by SSS seemingly refutes a lot of that.) BB cost over $100 million less to make and market then Singerman, so continuing to say it was being compared to that is foolish.
It's laughable how before the film was released all you heard from the Apologist was the lofty B.O. predictions and then after the film unspooled and sucked wind at the US B.O. it changed to "B.O. doesnt reflect quality!" Now it's back to the box office figures, but the comparison now is a film that cost $100 million less to produce and market. You guys are frigging pathetic.
Well that's just what WB should have expected. Everyone's now more interested in Venom coming to the big screen the adventures of superboy. And after that, the Joker... all this singerman stuff will be old news.
Srry, imagine a "than" before "the adventures". Too much beer...
"for the final time, BB outgrossed Singerman domestically. I dont give a rat's ass about the WW box office since that's not what matters for a sequel."
What a dumb ass thing to say. Look at Casino Royale it is winding down at 155 mil domestic. That movie is not considered a huge smash if it's WW numbers were not so outstanding. SR made 200 mil domestic not 100 or something low like that 200, that is a lot of money. BB marketing costs were 100 mil same as SR marketing costs. Saying that BB has huge sequel potantial and SR has none when BB made less than SR is stupid beyond words.
The sequel will be superboy's day out.
"The sequel will be superboy's day out."
Why do the fanboys have such an issue with this kid. If you guys have yourself convinced this kid is going to be flying around saving the day like Superman you seriously are nuts.
*throws a piano at person above*
Superman Returns was the Brokeback Mountain of 2006.
What an insult to brokeback.
"What a dumb ass thing to say. Look at Casino Royale it is winding down at 155 mil domestic. That movie is not considered a huge smash if it's WW numbers were not so outstanding. SR made 200 mil domestic not 100 or something low like that 200, that is a lot of money. BB marketing costs were 100 mil same as SR marketing costs. Saying that BB has huge sequel potantial and SR has none when BB made less than SR is stupid beyond words."
Yes, folks, "Apologists" really are THAT dumb.
Hey genius, Batman Begins had a PRODUCTION BUDGET $100 MILLION DOLLARS LESS THAN SINGERMAN PEEPS. If you add in $100 million to EACH Batman Begins STILL cost $100 million LESS to make. And $200 million domestic in the time it was out is NOT a "lot of money".
You "people" are sad.
"BB sucked compared to superman. Chris Nolan this Chris Nolan that actually more people saw superman returns. Also Superman was a view once movie because it had a lot of feeling. Trust me in a few months this site will be dead and Superman will be in preproduciton."
Anyone know what this mental-midget is trying to say?
Saying that BB has huge sequel potantial and SR has none when BB made less than SR is stupid beyond words.
when the fuck does the box office have anything to do with sequel potential?? It's all about the plot or in Singerman's case, the lack thereof. The highest grossing film of all time couldnt have a sequel because the boat sank, it doesnt matter how much money it raked in.
Begins is set up for Batman to establish himself in Gotham and take on his greatest nemesis. Singerman is setup for another hokey land grab by Lex Luthor and "Superbastard" and "SuperDad" flying around saving the day like the Incredibles. Which one would you want to see?
"Which one would you want to see?"
Let's not ask pointless questions now. IF BS makes the sequel, they are OBLIGATED to see it. It's part of the pact they agree to when they join the cult called "Apologists".
The other part is a lobotomy.
"Hey genius, Batman Begins had a PRODUCTION BUDGET $100 MILLION DOLLARS LESS THAN SINGERMAN PEEPS. If you add in $100 million to EACH Batman Begins STILL cost $100 million LESS to make. And $200 million domestic in the time it was out is NOT a "lot of money"."
BB budget was 150 mil, SR was 209 mil. They both had marketing budgets of 100 mil. SR made more money WW than BB up against far fiercer competition so it's 200 mil is more impressive than BB 205 given that it had little competition.
"BB budget was 150 mil, SR was 209 mil. They both had marketing budgets of 100 mil. SR made more money WW than BB up against far fiercer competition so it's 200 mil is more impressive than BB 205 given that it had little competition."
Your proof for a claim of a $209 million dollar budget is where? Impressive to who exactly? WB and it's investors look at profitability, not "Well, more people over an EXTENDED period of time bought tickets for Singerman Peeps".
And genius, you add ANOTHER $100 million for advertising to Singermans' budget too. So, we'll take your "magical" $209 million dollar budget, add $100 million for marketing = $309 million. Batman begins? $250 million. Which is more PROFITABLE? Anyone with a grade school education knows the answer to this.
Batman Begins is, since you "Apologists" are a hair short of being declared mentally retarded.
I never argued what was more profitbale jackass i said more people saw SR than BB which is a fact. Go to wikipedia and look it up SR was quoted by Singer as 204 and Variety reported that it's final budget was 209 mil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_returns
"I never argued what was more profitbale jackass i said more people saw SR than BB which is a fact. Go to wikipedia and look it up SR was quoted by Singer as 204 and Variety reported that it's final budget was 209 mil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_returns"
Bring back some ACTUAL proof next time, idiot. It is BS' job to do "damage control".
You are obviously a buffoon. Read the posts again. I WAS arguing Batman Begins was more profitable, you took the OPPOSITE stance.
And since you want to say "more people saw Singerman Peeps", how about you research which was in theaters LONGER? You won't, because you KNOW it deflates your entire "Defense".
"Bring back some ACTUAL proof next time, idiot. It is BS' job to do "damage control"."
Man you are fucking stupid so i guess it is Variety's job to do damage control for WB as well right pal. SR competiton relative what it brought in goes a long to deflate you dumb ass arguments about it's BO. If BB was so fucking amazing why did it not pull in Spiderman type numbers. It had no competition and did not even make as much X2 did. Neither BB nor SR were big hits so this whole comparison is totally idiotic.
Oh for shit's sake SR was not perfect but BB bored the fuck out of me. The whole first 30 min is Bruce basically meditating with a bunch of monks. People talk about a lack of action in SR and then cite BB as a great movie, what a joke.
Begins did not have marketing costs of $100 million, not sure where you're getting that from but it isnt accurate. Begins marketing was more in the $50-$70 million range. You couldnt fart last summer without seeing a Singerman ad, Begins didnt have near the marketing presence.
As for Begins, there was more action in the first 30 minutes before he ever donned the batsuit where you claim he was "meditating with monks" than in all of Singerman. I can count at least a half dozen combat sequences in the first 30 minutes alone and hey guess what? thye actually managed to develop their characters too instead of having a bunch of 2 dimensional cutouts. I realize Batman didnt fight a continent or anything "super cool" like that, but to say the first 30 minutes of that film is "boring" is totally off base.
"Man you are fucking stupid so i guess it is Variety's job to do damage control for WB as well right pal. SR competiton relative what it brought in goes a long to deflate you dumb ass arguments about it's BO. If BB was so fucking amazing why did it not pull in Spiderman type numbers. It had no competition and did not even make as much X2 did. Neither BB nor SR were big hits so this whole comparison is totally idiotic."
Wow, this guy is hell-bent on PROVING what a shit-for-brains he is.
Hey moron, Variety based their report on what BS SAID. Do some more research and see it was closer to $270 million, asshair.
And since you "Apologists" like to run this out when it suits YOU, since when does BO=Quality, hmm? Batman Begins was a better movie period. Singerman Peeps was garbage and only fucking imbeciles like you liked it.
BB sucked you just cant admit it. You have the emotional maturity of a cow pie if you didnt love superman returns. Said once I will say again in 6 months this site will be dead and Singer will be making his next great work.
"BB sucked you just cant admit it. You have the emotional maturity of a cow pie if you didnt love superman returns. Said once I will say again in 6 months this site will be dead and Singer will be making his next great work."
Well, the good thing is you are a fucking reject, so no one cares what you said. I said it once, I'm sure I'll say it MANY more times: Only imbeciles liked this turd.
Oh, and since your stupid ass is here now, it pretty much GUARANTEES this site will be around for a long, LONG time. And BS WON'T be making a sequel, so keep waiting Gump.
Said once I will say again in 6 months this site will be dead and Singer will be making his next great work.
why will the site be dead? If Singer gets his egotistical paws on making the sequel this site will have a slew of new material to work with. Hell Singerman hasn't been really relevant to the public eye since before Labor Day weekend yet this site keeps on rocking along due to the magnitude of how badly the film sucked there seems to be a steady stream of material to go off of.
"Hey moron, Variety based their report on what BS SAID. Do some more research and see it was closer to $270 million, asshair."
Idiot here is exactly what they said get out your reading glassess. "In a July 2006 interview with Newsweek, Bryan Singer quoted the final production budget number as $204 million.[1] On October 30, Variety reported that studio placed the cost at $209 million after factoring in tax rebates and incentives."
You got that they are reporting what the studio placed it at not what Singer said the budget was. This is factual info the more you attempt to argue it the dumber you look. There was nothing in SR effects wise or sets wise that cost 270 mil. The only site that is legit and reports that is BOM and they are factoring in the failed attempts to get the project going again. The film itself did not cost anywhere near 270 mil. I don't think even SSS is claiming that it cost that much and if he is he's wrong.
"The film itself did not cost anywhere near 270 mil. I don't think even SSS is claiming that it cost that much and if he is he's wrong."
This all got settled a long time ago the budget was not 270 mil it was in the 204-209 range, i have read that in countless places.
The aboves says it. You haters are amazing. You just can't let it go. Returns was a great movie. It did awesome in DVD and you will be in line like the rest of us to see the sequels.
I've said before the "working budget" of the film was around $210 million give or take...Then there was about $100 million in promotion & advertising expenses. I've still yet to see what the cost of producing the DVD's was to the studio either.
The $260 million number was the number that went into the accountants books for the project due to the $50+ million in failed startup attempts and pay or play deals that never panned out. The studio really doesnt attribute that to Singer, but the bean counters do attribute it to the "Superman project."
The aboves says it. You haters are amazing. You just can't let it go. Returns was a great movie. It did awesome in DVD and you will be in line like the rest of us to see the sequels.
How prey tell did it do "awesome" on DVD? It had high rental figures it's first week out, but past that what was "awesome" about it???
"Then there was about $100 million in promotion & advertising expenses. I've still yet to see what the cost of producing the DVD's was to the studio either."
Could not have cost that much the DVD did not have all that much on it. The screens were just basic no complex animation in them like the Star Wars dvd's have. Just a documentary and some deleted scenes, hell there was not even a commentary on it.
dont forget the cost for making the "Requiem for Krypton" and all that other documentary crap Singer did goes into the cost of producing the DVD's as well.
"dont forget the cost for making the "Requiem for Krypton" and all that other documentary crap Singer did goes into the cost of producing the DVD's as well."
That was just a small camera crew that followed them around during production. There was nothing that looked or felt overly pricey to me about the DVD. Look at a DVD like SW Episode 2 or 3 that is a first class expensive DVD to make.
"The aboves says it. You haters are amazing. You just can't let it go. Returns was a great movie. It did awesome in DVD and you will be in line like the rest of us to see the sequels."
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you an imbecile. Round of applause for this slack-jawed idiot.
LOL Singerman made less than Miami Vice in France. That should never happen, no matter how big of a pussy the country is.
Ahhh all you hates won't admit its a great movie. Just sling insults. Bryan Singer is already in preproduction and while all you SR haters can sling is insults. You lose. Superman sequel and apologist win(but since the movie is good why should we apologize for anything.)
"Ahhh all you hates won't admit its a great movie. Just sling insults. Bryan Singer is already in preproduction and while all you SR haters can sling is insults. You lose. Superman sequel and apologist win(but since the movie is good why should we apologize for anything.)"
Ahh, so now the imbecile is MAKING THINGS UP! How fucking stupid do you have to be to say "BS is in preproduction"? Some moron has been spending too much time on Bluetights.net, verbally fellating themselves and Singerman...
"Apologists" are just like assholes...No, scratch that. They ARE assholes. STUPID assholes at that.
Singer hasnt even written a script yet, and WB hasnt greenlit anything. What exactly is Singer in preproduction for??? Idiot.
actually Singer is in preproduction. He dropped out of Logans Run to do the sequel. he's finishing the Mayor of Castro Street and jumping onto Man of Steel.
Once a script is commissioned you are technically in pre-production when it's the director that is most likely going to do the film providing the script. Why?
Because a studio pays for the script.
Why do you think Kevin Smith loves to talk about his Superman script. He always says how much he got paid to write something completely ridiculous.
"actually Singer is in preproduction. He dropped out of Logans Run to do the sequel. he's finishing the Mayor of Castro Street and jumping onto Man of Steel."
We'll see about that.
You pathetic "Apologists" are going to be pretty heart-broken when he "drops out" aren't you?
"actually Singer is in preproduction. He dropped out of Logans Run to do the sequel. he's finishing the Mayor of Castro Street and jumping onto Man of Steel."
We'll see about that.
You pathetic "Apologists" are going to be pretty heart-broken when he "drops out" aren't you?
"You pathetic "Apologists" are going to be pretty heart-broken when he "drops out" aren't you?"
What signs do you have that he is dropping out, everything is pointing to him doing the movie. He signed a new deal and has already passed on several projects that may interfere with him doing the sequel.
"What signs do you have that he is dropping out, everything is pointing to him doing the movie. He signed a new deal and has already passed on several projects that may interfere with him doing the sequel."
No "deal" has been signed yet, genius. Watch and see.
No "deal" has been signed yet, genius. Watch and see.
Uhmm... Actually:
Singer's Superman Sequel Deal Confirmed
Source: Variety
October 30, 2006
Variety has confirmed that Bryan Singer has signed a deal with Warner Bros. Pictures to direct and produce a sequel to Superman Returns, with Legendary Pictures expected to co-finance.
The film is tentatively intended for release in summer 2009, although the studio stressed that there's not even a script or budget yet.
The sequel is apparently at the very beginning of the development process and, as with any other project, there are any number of factors that must be addressed before it is greenlit.
While Superman Returns wasn't the performer the studio had hoped for, it has earned more than $390 million worldwide and WB and Legendary say they will still turn a profit from the film.
The two companies are sure to insist that the sequel's production budget comes in under $200 million, adds the trade.
In terms of casting, Warner Bros. has an option on Superman Returns star Brandon Routh.
"as with any other project, there are any number of factors that must be addressed before it is greenlit."
Key-words there, aren't they?
Please tell me you aren't, and I already know the answer to this, STUPID enough to think "deals" aren't signed all the time in Hollywood that DON'T come to fruition? The only word that matters is GREENLIT. And as your OWN "proof" shows, that has NOT happened.
It must be hard being an "Apologist", what with the helmet-wearing and all...
"No "deal" has been signed yet, genius. Watch and see."
--------------------------------------------------------
"Key-words there, aren't they?
Please tell me you aren't, and I already know the answer to this, STUPID enough to think "deals" aren't signed all the time in Hollywood that DON'T come to fruition? The only word that matters is GREENLIT. And as your OWN "proof" shows, that has NOT happened.
It must be hard being an "Apologist", what with the helmet-wearing and all... "
------------------------------------------------------
Interesting how you completely change your argument when someone proves your statement wrong. But that's par for the course for you...Somebody brings you proof that what you say is just your own damn opinion and not fact and you completely change your arguement. If you want to argue the greenlit status then fine, but don't say that no deal has been signed and then after somebody points out that you are indeed incorrect, change your arguement while attacking the person who proved you wrong, and questioning their intelligence.
It makes you look petty, and sad...
But I hold no hope that you will respond to this with any kind of intelligence and maturity as you for some reason always have to win your arguements.
And yet, I DID win. Whether an "Apologist" like you deems ANYTHING "sad" is irrelevant to those of us who live in reality.
Watch kids, BS will "drop out" before production begins. Whether YOU want him to or not.
Oh, and don't forget your helmet, Corky.
"And yet, I DID win. Whether an "Apologist" like you deems ANYTHING "sad" is irrelevant to those of us who live in reality."
No you didn't you fucknut..you changed your arguement after your bullshit was proven wrong, but since you are obviously a sad delusional fanboy prick I guess we shouldn't expect anything different.
"No you didn't you fucknut..you changed your arguement after your bullshit was proven wrong, but since you are obviously a sad delusional fanboy prick I guess we shouldn't expect anything different."
Oh, I did win you shit-smelling retard.
See, an actual DEAL involves numbers and dates. Did that fluff-piece include either? No, no it didn't. But I guess a fucking imbecile like you wouldn't know that, would you?
God, you're ALMOST as stupid as your mom is FAT. And that tub is F-A-T.
"God, you're ALMOST as stupid as your mom is FAT. And that tub is F-A-T."
You just lost the argument with this comment alone way to stick to the facts. Your hunch is not good enough to make a case that Singer will be gone from the sequel. That is all you have, your opinion that he will be gone. Everything we have seen so far says otherwise PERIOD!!
"You just lost the argument with this comment alone way to stick to the facts. Your hunch is not good enough to make a case that Singer will be gone from the sequel. That is all you have, your opinion that he will be gone. Everything we have seen so far says otherwise PERIOD!!"
Hey asshair, remember this:
"No you didn't you fucknut..you changed your arguement after your bullshit was proven wrong, but since you are obviously a sad delusional fanboy prick I guess we shouldn't expect anything different."
What kind of cellar-dwelling asshole uses foul language and insults, then proclaims: "You lost because you used foul language and insults dum-dum"??
I know, the kind with a fucking fat slug of a mother. When's the bitch going to take a bath anyway? What's it been, 10, 12 years?
Like I said, sad pathetic Fanboy who can't except that he was actually proven wrong. Now he is saying that since there are no numbers associated with the article then it must not be true.
You are a horses ass. You can't man up and admit that you were proven wrong with your "No deal has been signed" statement so you lash out like an 8 yr old boy.
I bet every other poster on here that hated the movie wants nothing to do with you and they realise just how sad you are. Man up and stop changing the arguement to say that you win.
YOU LOST SHIT FOR BRAINS!!!!
oh and have you ever noticed that when you ask the blog "Do you see this guy here, this ugly guy who has a fat mother?" that nobody pays you any attention. Why? Because you give every other intelligent fan (including SSS) that didn't like this movie a bad name, but you are to dumb to realize it.
But I guess in your world ignorance truly is bliss.
"Like I said, sad pathetic Fanboy who can't except that he was actually proven wrong. Now he is saying that since there are no numbers associated with the article then it must not be true.
You are a horses ass. You can't man up and admit that you were proven wrong with your "No deal has been signed" statement so you lash out like an 8 yr old boy.
I bet every other poster on here that hated the movie wants nothing to do with you and they realise just how sad you are. Man up and stop changing the arguement to say that you win.
YOU LOST SHIT FOR BRAINS!!!!
oh and have you ever noticed that when you ask the blog "Do you see this guy here, this ugly guy who has a fat mother?" that nobody pays you any attention. Why? Because you give every other intelligent fan (including SSS) that didn't like this movie a bad name, but you are to dumb to realize it.
But I guess in your world ignorance truly is bliss."
Wow, what a long-winded diatribe that said NOTHING. One expects nothing less from a brainless fuckwad like you.
Hey pussy-fart, if it isn't obvious by NOW that no one cares what an imbecile "Apologist" thinks about the intelligent people who dislike this turd, it never will be. But I guess trying to instill common-sense into a toddler is like banging your head on a wall.
And for the record, douche, I get YOUR attention when I talk about your morbidly-obese mother. And that is ALL that matters. Maybe one day you'll pay attention, and hose that pig down in her pen.
You really are a fucking idiot. You got schooled on your arguement and now you have to lash out.
What's 4th grade like nowadays? Because that seems to be the level of your intelligence.
You haters must be so proud to have a monkey like this on your side.
I just realised you called me a douche? LOL....Honestly how fucking old are you? Who calls people douches anymore?
Oh, so now I am OLD because I called you a douche? Which is it, you slack-jawed idiot? Am I in "4th grade" or "old"?
See, way to prove how much a fucking moron you are. And to answer your question: Someone who OWNS you DAILY in here with my wit and intelligence. Keep trying, dingleberry.
"Oh, so now I am OLD because I called you a douche? Which is it, you slack-jawed idiot? Am I in "4th grade" or "old"?
See, way to prove how much a fucking moron you are. And to answer your question: Someone who OWNS you DAILY in here with my wit and intelligence. Keep trying, dingleberry"
Since when did childish insults become wit and intelligence? And my point is that only someone with an intelligence level of a little boy would call someone a douche.
Is your entire family filled with drooling retards like yourself? I mean drooling other than when you open your Wonder Woman comic and see boobies or start sucking on your momma's little tittie for dinner.
When this movie sets a production date I can't wait to hear you cry.
Man, is it hard being THAT stupid??
You claim superiority when someone disses your smelly bitch of a mother, then try to throw a WEAK insult of your own? "Apologist" in a nutshell for you. They want it ALWAYS to go both ways when it suits them.
I think I need to slap that rank septic-tank you call "mom" again. Stupid bitch gave my dog fleas.
Guys, is this really necessary?
Seriously.
Short answer: Yes. "Apologists" deserve no less.
That's the great thing about the Internet. You can be as rude, crude , self-centered and childish as you want to be without sacrificing any real personal integrity. You don't have to face that person or talk to someone like that in front of other people you know because if you talked like you guys have been, with the personal insults and such, it would change the way people perceive you.
Hey, I didn't care much for the movie myself, and yes - free speech and all, but do it with dignity and class. Besides, you guys are getting way too personal for a movie like this. Lighten up.
Here's a suggestion: Don't worry about what I am doing. Who are YOU to tell people how to act?
His mom is STILL a cheap nickel whore. She reeks of dogshit and used condoms.
I should have realized, you're the guy who thought he was a smartass when it came to the term "Apologist".
Shut you up good, didn't I?
Dude, you have way too much anger on this subject. Yeah, I am that same guy who made a "big deal" out of the term Apologist. I wasn't trying to be a smartass by the way, just pointing out a word you were using wrong, that's all. Honestly.
Who am I to tell other people how to act? Well, since you asked, I'm a person who knows what the term apologist means. I was just trying to save you from sounding silly, that's all.
I just don't understand why there are people in the world who are looking for a fight. Are things not going your way to where you feel like you have to snap at everyone who disagrees with you? Does the success of the movie really mean that much to you that you don't have anything else to hope in? That's not just to you, but anyone else who's been involved in the "Your mom..." comments and so forth. It's childish.
Well, since you obviously DON'T know what the word means, let me remind you of what you said:
"Okaaaaay, so they're apologizing and yet they're defending themselves too? Dude, just be honest and say, "Hey, your're right - the term apologist isn't the best word to use", instead of backtracking."
Now that we have your lack of knowledge on what the word means set, HERE is what it DOES mean:
apologist: A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.
And you WERE trying to be a smartass and you FAILED. Like I said, don't worry about what we are doing in here, it's none of YOUR fucking business.
Post a Comment