Brandon Routh: Franchise Killer?

Well, well, well.... BJ is so dull he's putting HIMSELF to sleep...

The weekend box office numbers are in, and what do you know? ANOTHER film franchise is DOA with BJ Routh attached.

http://www.seattlepi.com/movies/425121_tvgmovies15.html

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World came in a dismal FIFTH in the box office tallies, totaling a paltry $10.5 million for it's opening weekend. FAR behind the Sylvester Stallone action extravaganza The Expendables, opening at #1 with $35 million. Who would have predicted THIS would happen? I mean, there are just SO MANY "people" out there that want BJ to strap on his Fruit Roll-Up cape again isn't there?

Obviously not. The ugly, overweight Apologist virgins couldn't even tally a DECENT number for BJ's latest FLOP.

I took a look at a few message boards these last few weeks, gauging the Apologists "predictions" for the two films listed above. I read things about how "Scott Pilgrim will easily beat The Expendables", and how "amazing Routh will be". Amazing is right. Amazing that this box office cancer was even included in the cast. Not only did The Expendables destroy Scott Pilgrim, but so did Eat, Pray, Love and TWO films in their second to FIFTH week of release! The Other Guys and Inception also placed well ahead of Pilgrim.

Anyone wondering if BJ's "Dylan Is A Dog" will get a US theatrical run? I am not going out on much of a limb when I think NO. The guy just isn't a box office draw, and anything his name is attached to will sink faster than his career projections.

Start filling out those applications at the local bowling alley, BJ. No one is going to be paying you $65 for a picture at a 'con for long....

Why Spider-man Soars and Singerman well...Sucks

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past week I'm sure you've heard by now about Spider-man 3 's record opening weekend box office take of $151.1 million domestic and $382 million worldwide. (75% and 97% of Singerman's TOTAL box office take respectively) Mind you this is for the third film in a trilogy when these big film franchises usually tend to fall off a bit i.e. Batman Forever, Superman III, The Matrix Revolutions, etc.

Now granted the box office take is not the sole indicator of a film's quality, as the few supporters of Singerman like to point out. (except when it comes to comparing it to Batman Begins, then box office matters for some reason?) However it can be one big indicator of a film's quality since if people enjoy a film or a franchise of films, they'll actually pay to see it... a novel concept I know.

So why does Spider-man, Marvel's flagship character, continue to break box office records and soar in popularity while Singerman, DC's big gun and American pop culture stalwart, festers in cinematic mediocrity and Brandon Routh's photo appears on milk cartons? Well it's a pretty simple formula, parts of which we've discussed on this blog before. The break down is as follows:

1. A director with an appreciation of the source material who isn't afraid to do his own spin on it within the bounds of what's consistent with the characters. - This is the most crucial piece to any of these films. This is why the Sam Raimi's and Christopher Nolan's of the world get such rave reviews from the fan communities and why websites like this exist for Bryan Singer. Raimi is a life-long Spider-man fan. Even so, he admitted to spending hours upon hours with the writers brushing up on the comics to decide where he wanted to go with all 3 of the Spider-man films. He wanted to do his own updated take on the material while remaining true to who the characters are. He knew these characters had withstood the test of time for a reason, and didn't have the ego to try and make them something they weren't. True, he took a lot of shit for the whole "organic webshooters" thing, but in the end it was a relatively minor alteration and he still came through with the same Spider-man character everyone knows just with an updated twist.
Singer on the other hand, admittedly shit-canned the comics, and had his cronies Harris and Dougherty pen an unabashed love letter to Richard Donner's film and took liberties with the Superman character in an attempt to give him some kind of "emotional weight," when if he had just studied the character in the comics over the last two decades since Superman: The Movie he would've found all of the weight he needed.

2. A charismatic cast who plays well off one another. - Chemistry is an important part to casting any film . Not that I'm a fan of Kirsten Dunst by any means, but she and Tobey Maguire have "it" on screen together. You buy them as a couple and you empathize with them. The entire cast plays well off one another and that energy comes across when you watch the films. There's little to no "scenery chewing" in these films either with the exception of Dafoe at times in the first film. Most everything comes off as sincere.
Compare that to Singerman where you have background extras who have more dialogue than Brandon Routh, and he and Kate Bosworth have all the chemistry of old oatmeal and dont allow the audience to build a shred of empathy for them. (and you wonder why people keep bringing up Tom Welling and Erica Durance as a basis for comparison?) Add to that the fact that they completely wasted Kevin Spacey's talents by making him play a long extinct, petty swindler version of Lex Luthor that was far too Gene Hackman-like, and it's no wonder why audiences really had trouble caring about these characters or they alleged "drama" the film was trying to build.

3. Appeal across all demographics. - Again Spider-man makes a killing at the box office because its got something for everyone. It's true to its roots so the life-long fans enjoy it. Its got a ton of action for the young male crowd. Its got love triangles for the young female crowd. It's got the fast-pacing, super villains, and bright costumed characters to appeal to children of all ages. It also doesn't take on touchy issues like pre-marital sex and illegitimate children that offend the politics of some and turn certain people off.
What demographic exactly was Singerman trying to appeal to? Besides himself that is? Singer copped to the fact that he thought he made a "chick flick." An odd choice considering comicbook movies generally skew towards the young male demographic who prefer the exact opposite of that which is the action blockbuster. (Studio head Alan Horn acknowledged that shortcoming.) It makes sense to add pieces of that drama element to a film, not dominate the movie with it, and even then it fell flat since Bosworth's zombie like performance killed any believability in the romance angle. The only person you really felt bad for in the whole mess was Richard White.
Children weren't really targeted by the film either with it's slow-pacing, lack of an interesting villain (unless you count the island...) and drab, washed out pallette, which was an extremely odd choice for such a light character. The sluggish merchandise sales figures basically confirmed that the movie didn't hit home with kids. Then you get to the alleged "elements of drama" like the illegitimate "super kid" and the creepy stalker angle, and you don't really have a family friendly film either.

4. Storylines that don't unnecessarily paint the film into a corner and lend themselves to further sequels. - At the end of each Spider-man film you know the direction the characters are headed in and they don't make have any unnecessary plot contrivances that they'll have to sweep under the rug in the sequels. They dont saddle Spider-man with children he doesnt know he has for the sake of trying to evoke some emotional response about him being an orphan. Seriously, what the hell do you do with that kid in sequels? (unless you never intended for any...) Forget him? Kill him? Make him a side-kick? If that's the case, why invent him in the first place other than for arbitrary drama?

5. Don't be ashamed of who you are. - These are comicbook characters. Embrace that! You dont need to pretend to be some boring, weighty think piece. There have been compelling drama aspects to comics for years even though the focus has always been on action and the super reality the stories are based in. You dont need to pretend to be The Bridges of Madison County in order to evoke an emotional response from your audience, the emotional aspects are in the books already. Plus going overboard like that's something that is only going to bore them to tears.This is what killed the first Hulk movie and why it's being relaunched as the action/adventure epic it should've been the first time. But at least in the case of that film, most of the cast had the acting chops to pull it off.
The Spider-man films do the comicbook drama aspect very well. The death of Peter's Uncle Ben, Peter explaining how he could've stopped the shooter to his Aunt May, the revelation to Harry Osborne that Peter is Spider-man are all very well done and all straight from the comics. Where was that in Singerman? Even the way you actually empathize to an extent with the Spider-man villains is great and they dont do it in an over-the-top, sappy way. They do what they do for a reason, not for the sake of just doing so. They actually have real motivations not wacky real estate schemes for no apparent reason. That's part of what keeps people coming back and recommending the film to their friends.

This whole "Spider-man formula," however, has been evident since May of 2002 when the first Spider-man film exploded onto the scene, a full 4 years before Singerman was even released, so why did WB miss it? Hell Singer even got parts of it right in the first two X-Men films. The only thing I can think of here is that his ego and ambition to suck up to Donner got the best of him now that he felt he didn't have to prove himself in the genre any longer.

If you build it, they will come... Sometimes

"This is SPARTA!"

Well no. This is Singer's Superman Sucks. That image up there is Sparta, or more specifically, "300," the latest film from Warner Bros. that proved marketing works - as long as you listen to what your audience wants.

Grossing 70.9 million dollars, this tasty little masterpiece just became the highest grossing film ever to open in the month of March and is third behind The Matrix Reloaded and The Passion of the Christ for R-rated films. 300's opening included an estimated $3.4 million from 62 IMAX screens, surpassing Singerman as the biggest IMAX debut ever.

As Brandon Gray from Box Office Mojo pointed out...

Warner Bros. waged a striking marketing campaign for 300, based on the picture's hyper-stylized, digitally-enhanced look, the mythology of Ancient Greece and the high stakes premise of 300 Spartans fighting a vast army in the Battle of Thermopylae, replete with passing references to freedom to recall past audience favorites like Braveheart and Gladiator.

Steve Daly of Entertainment Weekly broke it down...

A tight 60-day live-action shoot began in fall 2005, and Warner got busy positioning 300 to the obvious fanboy-heavy, Sin City-loving audience. The studio organized a Q&A panel with director Zack Snyder and writer Frank Miller last July at San Diego's Comic-Con International, where they showed preview footage so gory and spiked with nudity it couldn't be posted on the Internet, thanks to MPAA rules about trailer content.

According to Snyder, Warner had given up on trying to appeal to a female audience. Then a pair of test screenings changed all that. "We got, like, a 100 percent recommend from women under 25," says the director. "They don't even get that kind of score on a romantic comedy." Why did women respond? In Miller's original graphic novel, Leonidas' wife, Queen Gorgo, appears only in passing. In the movie, Queen Gorgo (Brit Lena Headey) is a front-and-center partner to Leonidas, calming his nerves in bed (while both are very, very naked) and getting her own new subplot about political corruption as Leonidas marches off to war.

"At first I very much disagreed with it," Miller says. "My main comment was 'This is a boys' movie. Let it be that."' But the Snyders felt strongly that Leonidas needed something specific to fight for, and that female ticket buyers needed someone to identify with. The preview scores vindicated them. "Those numbers came back, and Warner said, Wow, we need to rethink this a bit," says Snyder. Instead of spending big on one 30-second Super Bowl TV spot, Warner sprinkled previews into more female-friendly TV shows, including Grey's Anatomy, Heroes, Lost, and American Idol.

---

If you missed it, the key was test screening and audience Q&A, something that is routinely done for big budget motion pictures but was reportedly undervalued by Singer during the production of Singerman. Warner Bros. pulled out all the stops but they seemingly ignored the one thing that would drive the film to boffo business: word of mouth.

It was by far, the most anticipated film opening in June. "More than any other studio, Warner Bros. has embraced the summer tentpole strategy. Spending huge sums to produce and market big titles, the studio regularly produces $200 million gambles that would make Vegas high-rollers blush." (Link) "On top of the $50 million or so it spent on its own marketing, Warner lined up promotions with Duracell, Samsung, Pepsi's Tropicana, Quaker, Aquafina, and Frito-Lay brands as well a Got Milk? campaign. Giant "S's" were projected on Chicago's Sears Tower, Niagara Falls, and other recognizable sites in about 10 major US cities. Sky divers made an "S" in parachuting formations in Boston, Dallas, and several other cities on June 27. (Link) "By the time 'Superman Returns' [opened], the 'S' logo was used to sell everything from soft drinks to motor oil. And toy manufacturers hoped that products like the Superman InflatoSuit would help to revive a sluggish licensing industry." (Link) Routh was seen on the covers of countless magazines, often more than once, and he, Bostworth and Singer made various appearances at press junkets worldwide. Warners also dumped a boatload of cash into Singer's blogs and ComicCon marketing. As Warners VP of targeted marketing, Viviana Pendrill once said, "you'd have to be living under a rock not to know about big releases like 'Superman,' 'Batman' and 'Harry Potter.'"

In terms of release, they covered all the bases. Print distribution was at blanket saturation levels. "Warner shipped out a whopping 8,500 prints of the film in North America, insuring there wouldn't be a cineplex in America that wasn't likely to have the big fella flying in." (Link) The studio "decided to wait until the World Cup ended July 9 to go outside Asia and Australia, launching in mid-July in Brazil, France, Mexico and the U.K.; it will wait until mid-August to open in Germany and Japan." (Link) Release date was carefully chosen; it was "perhaps the best date any studio has had in years: the Wednesday before a Tuesday holiday -- essentially giving "Superman Returns" a seven-day weekend." 'We're in good shape, and we have the primo date of the summer with a very long weekend ahead of us,' declared Warner Bros. distribution prexy Dan Fellman. 'Now it's up to the movie gods.'" (Link)

They should have started with the script writing gods, because an entertaining film will market itself.

"'Superman isn't caught up in the same angst that other characters like Spider-Man or Batman are,' says Gaetano Mastropasqua, Warners' corporate senior VP of global promotions and partner relations. 'Superman stands for truth, justice and a positive way of life.'"

Obviously, the suits in marketing had a handle on the big picture.

"In marketing Singer's version, Warner Bros. has paid particular attention to the comicbook's fan base, some of whom were wary of previous incarnations and expressed their opinions so on high-trafficked Internet sites. Last summer, in the midst of shooting, the studio flew Singer via private jet from the film's Australian location to San Diego, where he screened footage at the annual Comic-Con comic book convention. The response was enthusiastic.

'You are never going to satisfy everybody,' says producer Michael Uslan ("Batman," "Batman Begins"), who has started a new company called Comic Book Movies with financier M. Jonathan Roberts. 'But if you can't satisfy the main part of the fan base, you are going to have problems. These are people who are not only schooled in the characters, the mythology and the history but also in the creators over the years. They know what they like.'"

So what happened with Singerman? Was it the film itself? Why yes. Yes! We think it was.

Word of mouth is arguably, the single most important aspect of any film's success, and good WOM is directly related to how well a film reaches people. Look at the 2002 film year, for example. Paul Dergarabedian, president of Exhibitor Relations, a Los Angeles-based company that monitors box-office results, said...

"Without question, the two movies that exemplified the year (2002) were 'Spider-Man' and 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding.' They couldn't be more different in terms of budgeting, marketing, everything. But they were both mega-blockbusters. It just says that moviegoers are open to anything. As long as it's a good movie of course."

Singerman: The End of the Year Reviews

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."

Global Box Office Reports:

• 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."

Some pretty damning evidence right there, both in media opinion and B.O. statistics.

A happy and safe new year to all of you out there! Yes, even you Bryan.

That's Some Funny Math There, WB

Just wanted to bring to your attention a great article put up on Dave Poland's always entertaining Hot Blog that takes a look at the financials for Singerman and just how WB may fudge the numbers in their favor in order to avoid the rath of their shareholders. That's the magic of accounting. If you know what you're doing you can make profits appear and disappear when it's convenient for you.

I was reading a Merrill Lynch study on equity funding of movies. And it finally occurred to me how Warner Bros could claim profitabilityfor Superman Returns without getting sued by Time-Warnerstockholders.
Superman Returns grosses $392 million worldwide. That’s
roughly $210 million in rentals. WB takes roughly $130 million in worldwide
P&A and another $55 million in distribution off the top. That leaves $25
million for distribution toward participations and production.Ancillaries on
this movie look to be (generously) about $175 million net. That’s $200 million.
WB takes half of that, $100 million… plus roughly $55 million in distribution
fees… equals $155 million. Why, that would be a $5 million profit! And if you
accept WB’s acknowledged cost on the picture of $210 million, you’d be looking
at… taa dah!!!... a $50 million profit, as they claimed in the NY
Times.

Of course, you have to overlook the $60 million in failed development costs… also acknowledged by WB. And the $30 million or $40 million in additional production costs that are generally acknowledged inside the non-publicity side of the studio as real. And my figure of $130 for worldwide publicity is generous, especially considering the long push to crack $200 million domestic (it happened last week) and the big money spent on weeks two and three and four of the domestic run. And any participants who might have gotten paid (did Bryan Singer have gross points?) are not offered here. But studios are good at hiding costs when they so wish, just as they are good at hiding profits when they so wish.

Interesting. When you look at a film like that and add back things like distribution fees you can really enhance the look of the film's bottomline. But how much of that money does the studio actually ever really see?

Best of all, by this accounting method, Legendary Pictures took an
only-in-for-$105- million hit of $5 million and an it’s-really-$150-million hit
of $50 million.
In looking towards a second Singer Superman, there is the
obvious advantage of not carrying the load of failed development costs. And
keeping Singer to a $150 million budget is possible. But Variety’s
story on the idea of this sequel says that a financing partner is key for WB
to movie forward. Why, if the first film was allegedly profitable?

Yeah, I've been asking the same thing. If the film would've been profitable whether or not WB split the $200 million in revenue ($25M from theaters plus $175M in ancillaries) with those distribution fees added back, why DOES the financing partner matter???

Well, as you see, WB gets to triple dip, while an equity partner has only one
shot at breaking even or profiting. Recovered marketing costs also pay for
permanent WB staff on the picture. Distribution returns are mostly profit. So if
Superman Returns Again did 20% less at the box office ($400 million is nothing
to sneeze at), the dollar flow looks like...
Production cost: $150 million

Total net: $310 million (on $315 million worldwide gross)
WB P&A - $120 million
WB Distribution – $40 million
WB Production - $75 million
Partner Production - $75 million

In other words, a breakeven movie, with $40 million in profit for WB, using this year’s SR calculation. And nothing for a partner. (Again, this is without profit participation.)

Yeah, I know that's enough to make your head spin, and there's even more figures on the blog page that details other scenarios for a sequel, but the point is pretty clear how you can make it look a lot better than it actually was.

The betting is that Superman Returns gets more love on DVD than it did in
theaters and that it is stronger going into another film, plus the idea that
Singer makes the movie that people really wanted to see the last time.
That said, Batman Returns was down 10% from Batman and Spider-Man II was off 7% from
Spider-Man.
Realistically, what will make the “deal with Singer” into an actual movie? It could be DVD revenues. Everyone involved will be waiting to see how SR sells on DVD. The margin for financial safety on another film in the series is that thin. And of course, this all becomes moot if the next film soars. And so it goes…

So like we said last week, even though Singer is "signed" to some form of a contract to do a sequel, just how and in what form that materializes will be dependent on what happens in the home video market and just what kind of profit margin goes on the books after that.

Box Office Update: Took You Long Enough

While we've had some fun the past couple weeks looking at some of the film's ancillary revenue forms, we thought we'd peek in at the numbers that really matter once again. In it's 17th weekend at the domestic box office (i.e. a couple hundred dollar theaters), Singerman took in $173,300 and FINALLY broke the $200 million mark for a grand total of $200,006,305 year to date. Granted we fully admit that before the IMAX totals came out, we didn't think it would break that mark, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a supporter of this film that saw that one coming either.

But before Singer and Co. go throw another Halloween party, is their really any significance in hitting the $200 million mark now? Does this latest $173K really make a difference other than being able to say they hit a milestone of a nice round number? In actuality, no, not really, especially not after this length of time. We know there was speculation by some sources that the film hitting $200 million domestic was some "magic number" for a sequel, but that was largely passed off as being inaccurate by certain people in the industry. When you take into account the cost of the film to produce ($209 million) and market ($100 million), it's still glaringly obvious that the film fell well short of expectations (Alan Horn even admitted this). Whether it made $198 million or $202 million the film still has yet to make back it even come close to breaking even. MovieWeb has an interesting look at the situation:

"Superman Returns finally crossed the $200 million plateau! Congratulations. Oh yeah,the bad news. It took 117 days for it to cross that mark, 8th slowest all-time,and, oh yeah, the flick still has $70 million to go before it reaches a profit.Good luck hitting that mark, you idiots."

While we're not exactly sure who the "idiots" are, it does bring up a good point. The film still has a long way to go before it even thinks about breaking even, and even though its now hit $200 million it took almost twice along as films like Batman Begins (who it still sits over $5 million behind) and cost almost $100 million more to make and market. And since some of you have been asking, Singerman also took almost six times as long as contemporary X-men: The Last Stand (who it sits over $34 million behind domestically) and cost just slightly more to make and market.

Looking at those factors, I'd say the status of the future of the "franchise" hasn't changed over the last weekend, and still won't be determined until long after Singerman has been collecting dust on DVD shelves.

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.

Box Office Update: IMAX Life Support

It's been a couple crazy weeks around here recently, so postings have been few and far between, but rest assured we're working on some doozies for you. In the meantime, let's check in at the Singerman box office.

In its 11th weekend at the domestic box office, Singerman took in a whopping $453,273, and its total domestic take still sits at a disappointing $197,430,626. Frankly we're a little surpised that it's gotten this far based on how it was tracking earlier. Looking at the statistics, we can see its barely in many theaters (241) and hasn't been for a few weeks now. Where has the money come from the past 3 weeks you ask? The answer: IMAX. That's basically all Singerman is left in at this point, and that's because it's contracted to be there per a WB agreement with IMAX, as are a few of the other disappointing WB summer releases like The Ant Bully. We dont know what WB paid IMAX for that this summer, but whatever it is it's not enough, and they're going to owe them BIG TIME come time for the next contract, as IMAX has pretty much saved their summer slate from total embarassment by adding a nice chunk to their disappointing films bottom lines.

Does this mean Singerman finally found "legs" on IMAX? No, not at all. That term refers to a film's stint in traditional theaters. IMAX is less about the quality of the film in the theater and more about the experience of the visuals in the film with the huge screen, 3-D, etc. Why do you think people go to those theaters to watch 2 hour movies on honey bees? Singerman's moping must even look cool in 3-D, though we seriously doubt it. Expect IMAX to have WB over a barrel when the next contract comes up for negotiation.

As for the obligatory Batman Begins comparison, in Begins 11th weekend at the U.S. box office it took in $445,373, or about 1.8% less, for a total domestic take of $203,019,055, or about 3.8% more. Keep in mind Begins had a more limited IMAX release and didn't have the benefit of having 3-D footage in it, oh yeah and the fact that it cost CONSIDERABLY less to make and market. Should be fun to see how this one finishes out since Begins spiked up again in its 12th and 13th weekend at the B.O..

Box Office Update: Too Little, Too Late

A few weeks late, a few million short.

In it's 9th weekend at the domestic box office, Singerman surprisingly showed a little life, or at least it did as compared to it's previous efforts. In weekend 9, Singerman grossed $780,405, or only about 8% less than it took in last weekend, good for 20th place. Not bad considering it only lost 72 theaters from the prior weekend, but not good either, considering this movie should've still been grossing in the million dollar plus weekends at this point in time, not barely edging out movies like Cars that has been in theaters for 3 weeks longer. Even with this current weekend's gross, the cumulative gross sits at just $195,388,237.

And what would a box office article be without a comparison to Batman Begins? In it's 9th weekend at the domestic box office, Begins took in $1,050,497 or about 25.8% higher. At this point in time, Begins cumulative domestic take was $201,149,986, or about 2.9% more than Singerman. Look for Singerman to finally peter out somewhere around $197 million.

Box Office Update: Can you smell the failure yet?

The "Man of Steel" continues to plummet like he's made of lead.

It only took until its 8th weekend at the domestic box office for Singerman to fall below the million dollar mark. Though it wasn't as bad as it could've been, taking in just $848,255 in weekend #8 is embarrasing none the less, considering the scope of this picture for the once proud icon. Singerman came in 20th place for the weekend about $460K less than box office contemporary The Devil Wears Prada, and now sits at a not-so-impressive $194,165,746 domestic total.

How does that compare to Batman Begins you ask? Well, in Begins 8th weekend at the domestic box office it raked in a cool $1,822,445 or 54.5% more. At the end of its 8th weekend the cumulative domestic box office for Begins was $199,088,386 or 2.5% higher. The gap once again widened between the two films, and Singerman still remains on track to peter out somewhere around the $196-$197 million mark domestically.

Singerman is Flat-lining

Clear!!!!

Time of death? Most likely somewhere around August 31st.

Theater counts were released today for the upcoming weekend of August 18th, and once again Singerman took a big hit in screens losing 367 of the 750 it had last week (roughly 49%). This leaves Singer's mess in only 383 domestic theaters, in this just it's 8th weekend at the domestic box office. We're guessing those remaining theaters are run by desperate exhibitors looking to turn some kind of revenue out of the mess they got from WB. Everyone else seems to have given up and wants to clear out as much cinematic garbage as possible for "internet phenomenon" Snakes on a Plane.

Comparatively, Singerman is only in 28 more theaters than the film Cars which has been in theaters for 3 weeks longer. Singerman's contemporary, The Devil Wears Prada, is still in 824 theaters, losing only about 27% of it's theaters from the weekend before. In it's 8th weekend at the domestic box office, Batman Begins was still in 1,192 theaters or 68% more, meaning that Singerman has about as much "legs" as those reptiles on the plane with Sam Jackson.

It will be a minor miracle if Singerman makes more than $800,000 this weekend.

Clear!!!!

Box Office Update: The Train Wreck Continues

<-- Singer re-enacts just how exactly he derailed the film. Box Office weekend #7 is in the books for Singerman, and like the 6 before it, it wasn't a pretty sight. This past weekend Singerman limped home with a whopping B.O. of $1,242,461 good for 17th place at the domestic box office, falling behind cinematic juggernauts like Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna (what??) and The Night Listener, and finished over $600K behind summer surprise The Devil Wears Prada which was also in it's 7th weekend. Singerman's cumulative domestic take now resides at a disappointing $192,594,159.

Just how does that matchup against the film everyone loves to compare it to, Batman Begins? In it's 7th weekend at the domestic box office Begins grossed $2,448,225 or over 49.2% more. At the end of it's 7th weekend Begins cumulative domestic box office was $195,875,532 or 1.7% higher. The disparity between these two films grows by the day. Begins didnt break $200 million dollar until it's 9th weekend at the domestic B.O. At it's current rate of decline in gross receipts and theaters, Singerman wont see that until weekend 15 or 16, and at this rate it probably wont be in theaters that long to see it.

POTC2: Voodoo to Singerman

Even Voodoo dolls can't stop "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" slow but methodical assault on the worldwide box office.

variety.com
Posted: Sun., Aug. 13, 2006, 6:00am PT

Hero seeks his place in the world
'Superman' struggles o'seas against 'Pirates'
By Ian Mohr

Now that Warner Bros.' "Superman Returns" has flown around most of the world, the question is: What was the factor that proved kryptonite to weaken the superhero's results?

Was it the studio's marketing campaign? A character too steeped in Americana, at a time when "truth, justice and the American way" is under fire? An inability to update the wholesome Man of Steel for the "Grand Theft Auto" generation? Or was it just the film itself?

Certainly Superman had one key blockade this summer: Johnny Depp's flouncing antihero from Buena Vista Intl.'s "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest."

Overseas so far, the Bryan Singer-directed "Superman" has earned $146.5 million. In English-speaking turf alone, "Superman" is running a full $56.6 million behind "Pirates" in the U.K., and more than $15 million off pace in Australia.

"Superman" still has his laser vision set on 13 remaining territories, including key upcoming bows in Japan, Germany and Italy.

Some international studio pros point to "Superman's" issues even before "Pirates" came on the horizon.

"Some hardcore fans thought, 'This is the way it is supposed to be,'" says one international vet. "But others thought it was old-fashioned. Maybe Singer was too much of a fan?"

"Superman" isn't the only victim of "Pirates' " plundering: Last weekend, in its fifth frame, "Pirates" grossed more than double the combined takes of the next four films in the charts -- "Superman," "Miami Vice," "Cars" and "Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties."

After watching B.O. slump sorely in 2005, foreign cinema operators were hungrily predicting this summer's sesh would be a potential knockout thanks to a potent one-two punch: "Dead Man's Chest" and "Superman."

They were also sure that BVI's "Cars" and DreamWorks' "Over the Hedge" would make for some serious gravy, following the overseas rolls of recent CG animated successes "Madagascar" ($335.2 million) and "Ice Age: The Meltdown" ($449.6 million).

Well, it has been a haymaker of a summer, but "Pirates" has taken the wind out of everyone's sails.

"Pirates" has set its course to pass "Finding Nemo's" world take of $865 million; that will make it BVI's top combined domestic and international grosser.

[snip]

Meantime, Warner Bros. is left with the consolation that "Superman" will still beat the $166.5 million that its dark "Batman Begins"' lassoed in overseas coin last year.

"Who would have predicted this a year ago?" asks one overseas distribution topper. "I would have loved to have had 'Superman,' which has universal awareness. And Warner Bros. is so bloody smart and great in their marketing. But it was a lost opportunity."

He feels the character is old-fashioned and the marketing seemed similarly retro, invoking images from "Smallville" and the films from the '70s. And, unlike most of this summer's other blockbusters, there wasn't a single Euro star in this film.

And who would've thought that a pirate who runs like a girl would shoot down the Man of Steel? One international vet explains that Depp happens to be a uniquely potent star with overseas auds.

"Johnny Depp is loved around the world in a different way than Tom Cruise or DiCaprio," she points out. "Audiences admire the roles that he picks because they are not all big moneymaking films, and he plays characters that are quite appealing to young audiences around the globe."

And, as compared to Sparrow, Brandon Routh's Superman ended up looking pretty tame: These days, would you rather be an obtuse savior figure in tights or an island-hopping, shambolic rock star?

After Japan, Germany and Italy, most analysts believe Singerman's last hope will be the Galapagos Islands. We understand it has a good shot of leading the box office in that market's two and half theaters.

Box Office Update: Falling Behind the Bat

"You thought you could beat me you skinny punk?"

Well in it's 6th weekend at the domestic box office Singerman continues to fade further from the collective consciousness of the American public like a pungent fart on a windy day. Despite losing only 295 theaters it netted a whopping $2,158,227, good for 14th place! Singerman's total domestic take thus far is $190,176,570. (POTC2 hit that amount in less than a week BTW.)

For the people who like to point to Batman Begins' box office figures, and say "look! Singerman is doing good, it's doing better than Batman Begins did." (while totally ignoring little things like total production costs and marketing budgets), let's look at some comparisons. In it's 6th weekend at the domestic box office Begins made $4,727,469 or more than 55% higher than Singerman's. At the end of it's 6th weekend, Begins had a total domestic gross of $191,105,194 or .5% more than Singerman. Begins ended it's run at just over $205 million. If the downward trend that's been in effect since Singerman's second weekend continues, the film should die out somewhere around the $196 million mark. Not only will they be about $9 million short of that mark, they'll also have about $100 million more in expenses to pay off. Those DVD's better come with free beer or something.

With Great Budget, comes Great Expectations

Hot enough for ya?

Yesterday's L.A. Times has an interesting article that talks about how movies open at the box office and how they fare versus expectations in the industry. In the article, they explain why Singerman is viewed as a large disappointment in the Hollywood community.

"As much as studios say they don't like the expectations game, they play it like political strategists spinning poll numbers behind the scenes. That's because moviegoers often use box-office performance as a filter in deciding which movies to watch. Wall Street also pays close attention to perceived success on an opening weekend.

The Devil Wears Prada" opened to $27.5 million in June, the same weekend the more heavily hyped "Superman Returns" drummed up $52.5 million. The couture comedy was pronounced a surprise hit, but the latest superhero installment was labeled "unspectacular" and "disappointing" in articles.

"Prada," which cost a relatively modest $35 million to produce, was deemed a hit partly because it would yield a juicy return on investment for 20th Century Fox. But it quickly became clear that "Superman Returns," which cost $209 million, wouldn't bring the profit that Warner Bros. was hoping for in reviving the Man of Steel as a franchise.

This article just goes to prove our previous statements that while making $190 million at the US box office is nothing to really sneeze at, except when you spent $209-$260 million to make the film. We expected more from Singerman in quality as well as box office, Warner Bros. sure as heck expected a bigger box office, and obviously the movie industry did as well.

Weekend Box Office Update: 12th place!

Bryan Singer may need a hug.

In it's 5th weekend at the US Box Office, Singerman continued it's disappointing run grossing just $3.78 million over the 3 day period, only good enough for 12th place. Singerman's whopping total domestic gross sits at $185,794,683. A big disappointment for a film with a production budget of $260 million and a rumored additional $100 million in marketing costs.

Since people like to compare this film to the much better thought-out, and actually entertaining Batman Begins, let's take a comparative look shall we:

In Batman Begins 5th weekend at the US box office, it took in $6,035,300, or about 38% more money. After it's 5th weekend, Begins box office total was $183,140,850 or about 98.5% of Singerman's. Begins' total US box office at the end of it's run was about $205 million. Begins cost about $150 million to produce and about another $45 million or so to market.

What does this tell us? Singerman had a bigger opening than Begins, but has tailed off after that first opening 5 day weekend for reasons that have little if anything to do with Johnny Depp. Since Begins was actually good, and Singerman was terrible, it has had better legs, and little by little is reducing Singerman's initial lead in box office which ironically enough for Singer, was most likely due to that marketing department he likes to toss under the bus. If you do the trending for these figures, you'll see that barring any foreseen spike in ticket sales for Singerman (provided Singer doesnt start mass buying tickets or something) it's going to crap out around $195-$196 million. When you factor in the cost of Singer's "great epic," that's where things begin to get ugly for Singer and Co.

Singerman Falls out of the Top 10

And you thought Singerman only fell off a cliff in the movie....

Singerman's pathetic box office run hit an all time low on Friday. According to Box Office Mojo Singerman fell out of the top 10 in this, just it's 5th weekend. Although actual dollar figures arent available at this time (since no one really cares about anything but the top 10) it would've made less than the $1.2 million that 10th place "Clerks II" raked in.

By comparison, The Devil Wears Prada which came out the same weekend as Singerman, still hung tight in 9th place taking in $1.45 million while being in about 250 less theaters. That's right folks, a movie that's allegedley about Superman is getting pounded at the box office by an Ann Hathaway movie about a snobby fashinista. I'll surely wear my "S" shirt with pride.

Stay tuned for the weekend estimates which should come out sometime tomorrow afternoon.

Singer does his best Elmer Fudd Impersonation

Oh boy. How did he not know this was coming?

AOL Video is hosting a video file from TMZ.com where a European journalist interviews Bosworth, Routh, and Singer about Singerman and how it got it's butt kicked by Pirates of the Caribbean 2.

Bosworth and Routh both seemed liked they'd been prepped prior to the interview, and gave the typical stock responses to the questions about it being "good for the industry" yadda yadda yadda.

The truely amusing part comes at the end when the reviewers starts asking Singer questions about POTC2. Bryan seems like he had no idea those questions were coming, or is in some kind of denial. His response is laced with enough "uh's," "gah's," "duh's," "err's," and general stuttering to make "George" from Of Mice and Men look like a Nobel laureate.

$200 Million or Else?

TMZ.com is reporting that WB executives arent so sure that Superman will fly again.

"Talent agency insiders with ties to the film tell TMZ that Warner Bros. Pictures president and COO Alan Horn has informed agents that a sequel hinges on whether grosses of "Superman Returns" can crest the $200 million mark domestically. What's more, the studio plans to shave millions - many millions - off any "Superman" sequel's budget.

Talent agency insiders, speaking on the condition of anonymity, insist that Horn is so concerned about being burned financially by ionospheric "Superman" special effects costs that any sequel's budget would cost far less than Bryan Singer's quarter billion dollar baby: a meager $150 million. That's a whopping $35 million less than its predecessor was green lit at, and roughly $55 million less than "Superman Returns" alleged final negative cost."

Now dont get us wrong, we're Superman fans first and foremost, we just dislike (understatement) what Singer has done to our proud icon. Rather than seeing the cancellation of any further Superman films, we would hope that WB would address the real problem, which isnt the character, it's the guys writing and directing him, and send them packing while bringing in a more qualified staff.

Jack Sparrow Swabs the Deck with Singerman

The battle for the Summer 2006 box office is over already.

What was supposed to be the "Clash of the Titans" between box office heavyweights, ended almost before it began. Pirates of the Carribbean 2 debuted to the tune of a record breaking $135.6 million opening weekend.

Singerman on the other hand, was left sucking wind. Singerman continued to free fall losing a whopping 58% of it's opening weekend box office earning just $21.8 million.

That's quite the dropoff in one weekend, especially considering every other movie in theaters saw a marginal increase in attendance this weekend, most likely from the spill over effect from Pirates.