Oy.
There is a point where a movie starts to go in a direction that is unexpected even by those who are not pushing the agenda of positivity and all the cynicism melts away because mocking the handicapped is too unseemly for all but a few raging lunatics.
We
http://www.soulduster.com/ on: Friday Estimates by Klady
http://www.rehabsandrentals.com/ on: Friday Estimates by Klady
Joe Leydon on: Weekend Estimates by MacKlady
Abi on: Weekend Estimates by MacKlady
betavaftrar on: 3-Day Estimates By Klady That Made The Clown Cry
Tashie Jackson on: Friday Estimates by Klady
Jeffrey Boam's Doctor on: Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
DiggityDawg on: Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
David Poland on: Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
berg on: Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
Weeeknd Estimate Leftovers by Klady
Friday Estimate by MuthaSmurfin’ Klady
4 Day Estimates by Vehicular Klady
Friday Estimates by Green Klady
4 Day Estimates by Wolfpack Klady
Weekend Estimates by Screaming Rio Klady
Friday Estimates by Rio de JaKlady
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Interesting that DVC is still in the top 10 and X3 is not.
$17 million Friday for Superman?!?
I think my brain is falling out.
It’s going to be very hard for Warner’s to spin this as not disappointing, but I’m sure they’ll try. Probably compare it to Batman Begins and how that opened soft, even though that film actually HAD good word of mouth and no competition for its first two weeks.
I guess if you ignore budget, it’s not really not bad. $60 million plus over the three day is not bad and the holiday weekend is going to help stretch those grosses a bit. At this point, I can probably see it doing close to what Batman Begins did and barely cracking $200 million.
As for Prada, very impressive! I don’t care what anybody says, NOBODY was predicting almost $10 million on opening day and only six million behind Superman. Kudo’s to Fox’ marketing department. This film could end up doing over $50 million by the end of July 4th, maybe even crack $100 million?
The problem is that I don’t think Superman will have nearly as good word-of-mouth and it has to face Pirates next week, whereas Batman had a few weeks before WOTW and FF came around. The one good thing is that barring heavy Friday frontloading, this weekend should be up from the same weekend last year again, so the box office is rebounding and staying ahead….
Next weekend is going to be setting records.
To follow up for Prada, I meant it could crack $100 million eventually.
If that happens, look for all the articles within the next month about how the “underserved” woman’s market is going to the movies, again, and making films like Prada and The Breakup blockbusters.
While the Superman numbers are (somewhat) surprising — go Meryl! Devil is officialy a hit! Talk about a stealth campaign!
hmmm. you know, with the extra long 4th of July weekend, theyre still probably looking at 110-120 million by end of business Tues.
Is it as much as they wanted? No. Will it still coast to 200 million domestic: probably.
Still though, doesn’t that seem really underwhelming for one of the most iconic figures in pop culture. We all know how bad they fucked up Batman Begins last year with their beige fucking batman posters that looked like fucking shit. Whoever went with that campaign should be kicked in the throat.
A friend of mine said something that made a lot of sense. He said:
“Don’t you think the movie would have been marketed better if they would have had a single shot of Superman punching a bad guy, instead of multiple shots of Superman lifting stuff above his head?”
Of course, not seeing the film, i had to explain to him that superman doesn’t throw a punch, but he does lift a lot of stuff. The car, the plane, the daily planet globe, the crystal island…
Was the greatest mistake of this movie not having a Superman who doesn’t really get into a dustup, other than the subsequent ass kicking he gets at the hands of Luthor. And we never really see Superman confront Luthor at the end of the movie, getting closure. Luthor just vanishes. By taking away the more ‘superheroic’ aspects of the character, did Singer really give nothing for Warners to market with?
If Singer had filmed something involving Superman in a Matrix Revolutions style dust up through Metropolis (like Superman II only with much better FX work), are we looking at another 25-30 million over the 5-6 day week here? I think so.
I mean, look at the trailers. Other than the bullet hitting the eye, and Superman flying to catch the plane, all you really have are iconic shots of Superman flying around. Why they look pretty, was there anything you saw in the film that really would have brought the kids in? When Donner’s Superman marketing came out, with the famous “you will believe a man can fly” line, it was at a time where FX weren’t that evolved. Nowadays, we see guys flying all the time. Did we need to see something more? Superman fighting a Luthor henchman with a battlesuit or something? X-Men 3, for all the crap people gave it, did provide those comic book sized action scenes.
It’s a crackpot theory, because there’s no way to really prove it, but i think the lack of any real ‘fight’ scene may have very well contributed to the lack of interest from the kids.
PotC 2 on the other hand….
They really should have released the bullet in the eye trailer in the States… that was singly the coolest shot in the movie. A lot of people have mentioned the lack of a “fight sequence” as a problem.
So my question is… will there still be a sequel or will Singer have to make it for under $100 million?
Edouglas,
there’s no way, with the way the studios spend money now, that a Superman movie could be done for 100 million.
The costs of bringing back the original directors, actors, writers, etc. is probaly 40+ million.
Unless it’s a movie where Superman has dinner and talks for two hours and is called My Dinner With Superman, it ain’t being made for 100 million.
I think the Superman sequel is a foregone conclusion for some people. And as many agree, X2 is better than X1, Spidey 2 is better than 1. But with these numbers and the inevitable drop when Pirates hits, will WB be clamoring to greenlight the sequel? After Poseidon tanking, I think they are going to be much more cautious…they can probably lower the budget because at this point Singer & Co. will (or should) return for the love of the project.
I think Anne Hath-a-way of making smart movie choices. So far her films have to be considered hits. The only missteps are Ella Enchanted and Havoc, the latter of which can be seen as trying to stretch her acting muscle.
Prin Diaries I & II, Brokeback Mtn, and now Devil Wears Prada are all successfully launched movies. Meryl Streep is to be credited for sure for this one, but I don’t think we should underestimate the draw of Anne Hathaway. Maybe SHE is the next Julia Roberts.
“there’s no way, with the way the studios spend money now, that a Superman movie could be done for 100 million.”
On the flip side, there’s no reason you couldn’t make an excellent Superman movie for well under $200 million (say $150-170).
One thing that can be said about the Superman sequel is that not as much money will need to be spent on development, casting and a lot of the technical aspects are already in place… but Singer really needs to make another Apt Pupil or Usual Suspects right now to save face as a director. IMO, of course.
Worth nothing, WOTW last year (which also opened on a Wed as everyone knows) was almost 9 million ahead of Superman by today. That’s a lot to make up on Monday and Tuesday for the Man of Steel.
If WB doesn’t hit another $20 figure either today or tomorrow, they are in deep shit, cause then over $200 isn’t guaranteed.
The fact that the 4th falls on a Tuesday instead of Monday will help Warner Bros. a bit. They get more of an extended holiday weekend with many people getting both Monday and Tuesday off. The 4th is really not a huge box office day but Monday will help compensate for that. Still, my guess is that Superman barely tops $100 mil for its first 7 days.
“With a weak Thursday and Friday, Superman Returns is now behind Batman Begins after 3 days.”
Actually, it’s not. Batman had $39 million after three days and Superman has $48 million. It’s still higher on all three days, but more on Weds than Thurs/Friday.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2005/BAT5.php
Just look what a little Corporate Synergy can do. I called 777-FILM this morning and got the following after “Hello, and welcome to Moviefone” . . .
From the director of X-Men and X-Men 2 . . .
the legend returns . . .
“Bring ‘er on . . . ARRRRR . . .”
Superman Returns — now playing
Name-checking, a cliche, a George W. Bush homage and a pirate call.
OMG d00d taht is so l@m3
I think it’s time for thie studio’s to finally admit it. These franchise “reboots” just aren’t working. Universal tried it with Kong and their monster stable. Warners with Superman and Batman. Disney with Herbie. None (even Batman) shook the boxoffice in the way the studio intended.
Kids today don’t want their daddy’s or granddaddy’s franchises. They want their own movies to hang on to. Little Eric and Erica want Jack Sparrow and Harry Potter, not Superman and Kong.
Studios, stop regurgitating the same old nonsense and create new brands and franchises for the new generations.
Apologies… ED is right… in gathering numbers, I somehow grabbed the Saturday total for Batman Begins and not the Friday. Thanks, ED. (Argh!)
(Error corrected… within 10 minutes, for those counting)
Sorry for the “I think it’s time for thie studio’s to finally admit it.” My spelling is usually better than that. Gah!
Anyway, on to Prada. I think that the Prada trailer is the most effective piece of film marketing in the past year. The movie went from summer throw-away to anticipated with that piece alone. I’m a 30-something guy and I’ll be seeing the film next week (it’s the only movie of the summer my wife has asked to see, and I’m almost as interested as she), so I know the appeal is cross-demographic. I doubt, though, that the film will have much staying power past the summer…it needs more of an 80s edge (i.e. drugs and nudity) to have any kind of resonance beyond its theatrical run and DVD street date.
Wreck – These reboots are working fine. They just have to be made at a price. $60 million for a Herbie movie should not be seen as a flop, though the fact that Sky High did about the same business for less money is instructive.
As for the $100 million sequel, this is one of the few franchise films that could be made for less next time. For one thing, there will be no $60 million hangover from screwed-up development. For another, they can actually write and prep the movie before set construction starts the next time. And budget overruns can be clamped down on with enough room. Keep in mind that none of these actors are percentage level players and won’t be after this. They won’t even have a Hugh Jackman level star coming out of this.
$100 million is too little – amazing – but $150 million would not be undoable. And even if this film only grosses $450 million worldwide and loses $50 million to $100 million, the projection of a $400 million worldwide gross for a sequel could support (barely) a $150 million budget with the hope that lessons learned make it a much bigger hit next time around.
Blasting past the gross of the well-liked and gross-leaping X-Men 2 was unlikely for X3. But if SR gets smacked around, a Superman Threeturns movie with a truly kick-ass trailer can lift above this one. It’s a little risky, but this is not a “can’t move forward” kind of disaster, and Singer will have something to prove.
(Note: WB’s marketing budget internationally will tricky… do they pull back now or push harder? Do they up the ante on the publicity side?)
All women and gay people I know want to, nay even have to, see Prada.
X3 will undoubtedly coast into $230 m. I think Supes would be lucky to equal that figure at this point.
The whole purpose, though, of these reboots and remakes is to use the audience awareness that already exists to create as close to a slam dunk as one can get. If the same rules of marketing and budget and everything still apply, then using the pre-existing properties becomes more about executive laziness than a sound business strategy.
The same goes for the tentpole theory. The summer blockbusters were supposed to be such sure-fire hits that they kept the riskier parts of the release schedule afloat and the company in the black. Now the tentpoles lose money as much, if not more, than the rest of the slate.
It’s almost as if show business often now retains the worst parts of both the “show” and the “biz” with little of the upside of either.
“Tentpole” is a phrase I thought died (God knows I tried to kill it off) about 5 years ago. It was resurrected this year by a bunch of old-school reporters trying to reestablish their hipness.
There are NO tentpoles anymore. The idea of the pole was that the rest of the studio product benefited from the success of one monster film. But these days, studios don’t even always use the attached trailer rights they have, selling or swapping them to other studios for future considerations.
The idea of
Re: reboots, Herbie and Kong may have not been world-shakers, but when Batman Begins 2 (or whatever it’ll be called) comes out, it’ll open huge. That was a successful relaunch.
Also Van Helsing should be considered an attempt to start a new franchise, not a reboot.
How much does Lady in the Water have to do to be considered a success? I’m eagerly anticipating another M. Night failure.
So a good deal of the problem isn’t necessarily the strategy of using pre-sold ideas/concepts/whatever but spending so much money as to make the mountain the finished movie must climb to go into profit… or, more accurately, to meet or beat expectations (profitability doesn’t seem to be what drives the coverage or the labeling of a particular movie as a hit or a flop/disappointment).
My point, though, was that it seems to me the purpose of making these big movies is to make home runs. But if the movies cost so much that the home runs have to be Barry Bonds on steroids against some 5th starter from the Texas Rangers while playing (for some reason) at Coors Field, then the entire purpose seems to have been defeated. It’s not a home run if it loses money.
It ends up in a situation where the studios only make a certain kind of movie because they’re trying to make money, but then they often don’t make money (or don’t make the money they could) because they spend too much making those movies.
I agree with the comments on the marketing of Superman as being soft (re: Bosworth,Routh etc.)
When I look at all of the old marketing for the 78 Superman, it is amazing how much they went out of their way to make Superman patriotic. Countless stills were released with Reeve in front of the Statue of Liberty, in front of the American flag etc.
I wonder, in hind-sight, how much extra in BO a Bosworth Maxim spread combined with a photo blitz of Routh in front of the flag would have helped; the actual content of the film aside.
I have seen this film twice now and defended it more than many, but I have to say…WB made their own bed with this one.
Hard to have sympathy on them.
I only hope that this doesn’t kill a sequel and if it does not, they learn their lessons and right the wrongs.
I’d say Batman Begins was pretty successful…it grabbed a lot of people’s attention.
I know a few who didn’t care for the
Burton/Schumacher films who thought it was a great movie.
I think whenever Batman Continues comes out, it’ll do brisk business. I’m guessing WB will be looking for a summer ’08 release for it? If that is a case, I can foresee a teaser sometime around Spidey 3 or POTC 3.
A lack of patriotism in the ad campaign definitely killed Superman Returns. My friends, family and I haven’t seen it yet because Superman wasn’t wrapped in an American flag while standing on top of the Statue of Liberty in the TV spots.
Nicol is also forgetting that the original Superman was released when the country was still getting over Bicentennial-mania, plus the malaise of the 1970s was making audiences crave that kind of iconography. The historical moment now is not the same.
JeffMCM & Stella,
I think what you are forgetting is that not everyone feels the same way about America as you do.
Again, think outside of yourselves and your own emotions. There are many liberals and conservatives who have no problem with Superman standing for ‘the American Way’.
And you know what…execs at Warners right now are probably agreeing with me.
Guaranteed, when this film comes out on DVD in the fall there will be some reference to patriotism in some of the ads.
The notion that Americans do not crave this kind of iconography is provincial thinking and ludicrous.
Tell that to the Americans who cheer on their team at the World Cup; or at the Super Bowl or the World Series. Tell it to the fans of 24 or The West Wing.
Tell it to all of those people waving flags this weekend in celebration of the 4th of July. There will be millions upon million of them of all political stripes doing it.
Do not get too wrapped up in your own predjudices about your own country to think everyone is as blase about it as you.
Films of this size about iconic characters are about appealing to the widest demo as possible. It seems more and more like WB, set out with this one to appeal to the smallest.
Nicol, I have no problem with Superman standing for ‘the American way.’ I never said otherwise. But I think it is ludicrous to think that a lack of patriotism in the ad campaign has anything to do with the soft numbers for SR. No one in America is watching the World Cup. And get off your f*cking high horse Nicol. Prejudices about my own country? You don’t know the first thing about how I feel about this country, so don’t presume to. I bet I love it just as much as you do.
And so the cycle goes, RDP. The financial problem in this business has, for more than two decades, has been the middle class. DVD covered the problems for a little while, but then everyone not working for a studio caught up and greed took full hold again. Agents have been sensational about taking care of their clients and made profit near impossible.
The cost of making a redneck comedy is not exponentially higher if that comedy is The Dukes of Hazzard (unless you get sued, but that is another conversation) instead of The Redneck Boys. So why not start with a premise that people get instead of explaining from scratch?
But financially, the problem is that agents suddenly argue that it
Nicol, you’re leaping to several unfounded, prejudicial conclusions. We should really just start ignoring each other and not waste everyone’s time.
I am so fucking tired of right-wingers casually questioning someone’s love of America for making any comment that isn’t blatantly wrapped in red, white and blue.
“How much does Lady in the Water have to do to be considered a success? I’m eagerly anticipating another M. Night failure.”
I don’t think he HAS failed yet has he? Unbreakable was seen as a mild disappointment but has had actually the best afterlife of all his films, and even a movie as bizarre and divisive as The Village DID make well over $100 million.
In fact, Stella, I’m glad when a movie studio doesn’t wrap itself in the flag. I think it cheapens and debases our national symbols when they’re used crassly and exploitatively.
Poland: “Wreck – These reboots are working fine. They just have to be made at a price. $60 million for a Herbie movie should not be seen as a flop, though the fact that Sky High did about the same business for less money is instructive.”
But that’s the problem. Aside from fiscally conscious Disney, most studios aren’t making any of these reboots, remakes, franchise restarts (call it what you will) “at a price.” You say so yourself in your lengthy examination of Dukes of Hazzard.
I think everyone agrees that exploiting a pre-existing franchise is fine and probably necessary. But at the cost of films like Superman or King Kong (both well over $200m production budget) it doesn’t make sense. These are properties that don’t automatically appeal to kids. How much money did Warners have to spend to try to get the kid demo to come out for Superman? Was it worth it to spend the extra marketing dollars?
Reboots are fine. But lets be real: $200m for a property that doesn’t automatically appeal to the youth demo…that’s spending good money after bad.
SR would indeed have a larger opening if it delivered with a Micheal Bay flair, and wrapped itself in Old Glory.
However, it needn’t have done even that, as Mr. Poland correctly points out that showing a few bits of original ‘WOW’ shots in under 30 seconds is the name of the game.
I don’t think Hathaway had much to do with Prada’s success, at least in NYC. The 3 PM showing I went to today was 95+% full, and appeared to be 85% female, 90% over 20. It’s not tweens driving this, but older women. Vogue circulates 1.3 million copies a month. That’s the audience, coupled with the residual goodwill from the book–which sold several million copies. It’s a Da Vinci Code for women, and we’d be seeing an identical gross with any number of people in the Hathaway part (Mandy Moore, Natalie Portman, Alexis Bledel, and Amber Tamblyn all would have worked, in some ways better than Hathaway.)
i was suspicious of warner’s pr strategy. in hindsight, the multiple release of clips, b-footage, etc was an effort to prop sr up. i didn’t say anything at the time, now wish i had.
one day warner would release 11 clips. next day 13 minutes of b footage. then more clips, etc. they knew they had a weak property and were trying to hype it up to the max. nobody bought it. plus all the negative blogging, and the change in release date – it’s a bit embarrassing.
i think after potc: dmc opens, sr can kiss it goodbye.
Two comments:
1. Actually, WB feels there still is money to be made from “Dukes of Hazzard.” The studio is producing a direct-to-video sequel (with, it should be noted, lesser-known actors in the lead roles).
2. Nicol, this is not a trick question (or a gotcha), but: When “Pearl Habor” (a movie I admit liking much more than most people on this blog) emphasized the flag, foursquare heroics and other elements of old-fashioned Americana, it was pounded by critics and civilians alike. And that, mind you, was a WWII movie about a sneak attack on the US. (At the risk of sounding really, really crass: I wonder how much more money that 2001 movie would have made if it had been released after, not before, 9/11.) Don’t you think that’s a fair indication of how folks would have responded to a Red White & Blue Superman?
joe, even if what you said is correct, Pearl Harbor still made over $200 million domestic. This was prior to 9/11, and it made more than Saving Private Ryan. Superman with an Americana tone may well have done much more than PH, and perhaps much more than the current iteration. Which does not mean it would have been a better film, but possibly much more successful. I do think Bay was a much more commercially viable choice for the film.
Actually, Saving Private Ryan outgrossed Pearl Harbor, both domestically and internationally. PH made $199m domestic.
Speaking of war movies released after Sept. 11, Black Hawk Down did pretty well for itself, both commercially and critically…and I don’t recall a lot of flag-waving in that film. I suspect Pearl Harbor would have actually made less money if it had been released after Sept. 11, because its cartoonishness would have been all the more apparent.
Pearl Harbor did *not* make more than Saving Private Ryan.
I’m thinking back at the main trailer released for Superman vs. that of Dead Man’s Chest. The Dead Man’s Chest one was just so much cooler. It had stuff you’d never seen before (Davy Jones) propulsive music, great looking action shots (Keira being pulled by the Kraken stands out in my mind as a great snippet) and an iconic shot of Jack Sparrow in a fantastic action pose. Warners, by playing up nostalgia and iconography really missed the boat.
Dave – great column. If I was going to SDCC this year, I’d buy you a round. But I’m not, so I won’t.
Anghus – you’re dead-on about routine SPFX.
Jeff – good points about Begins and the Bicentennial. Begins is exactly like X and Blade. A solid opening, but DVD and cable helped build a core audience that will show at the theaters for the sequel.
The SR business/word-of-mouth reminds me more of Hulk than anything, but I’m still hedging for Supes to have a solid second week. A ton of people are traveling, so when they slow down, they have to see something. The problem, as we all know, is POTC2, so Supes will be fighting for overflow.
And no, Tom DeSanto had no influence over X2. None. It’s not true the Singer/Dougherty/Harris X2 script was a dragging bore. SR shows that’s not possible, (By the way – Jackman, on Sunday Morning Shootout, told a perfect story about Singer and DeSanto on the first X film).
If this number continues for the weekend, there will be no Singer sequel. Jeff – you know what I’m getting at…
Jeff, you’re only half right. On initial run, Saving Private Ryan made $190 million. It only comes out ahead of Pearl Harbor when you factor in it’s re-release in theaters starting in Feb 1999 for Oscar noms. When i look at box office stats, I generally look at first releases. Re-releases are a whole other ballgame that are not fair to compare.
Then that’s what you should have said. An awards re-release is not the same as a years-later re-release, as there’s not enough time for inflation to make a difference.
Re: word of mouth, I was under the impression that Hulk had _horrible_ word of mouth and that, so far, SR is doing pretty well.
Who knows what the future will hold for Singer and Superman, but having come this far investment-wise, the studio will probably continue with Routh and can Singer before they relaunch _again_ with Smallville: The Movie, which I assume is what Martin S is talking about. Deciding to relaunch again would be too embarrassing for the bigwigs.
I’m thinking Warner Brothers has a real, serious problem selling their event films. Have they had a single film surpass expectations this entire decade? I mean, it’s ridiclous that people label The Matrix Reloaded as a flop, but still, the movie still came under the 300 million they were hoping for. (And I think it was an absolute mistake to release an R-Rated Sci-Fi movie during the Holiday season) I think the only film they had that took people by surprise was Goblet of Fire’s total–as most people thought it was on the wane. But that’s really less WB’s doing, and more the result of book craze earlier in the year. (Maybe they can take credit for hiring Cuaron to pubertying-up the property a little) I don’t think Batman Begins is going to expand that much. The first movie wasn’t some sort of quirky science fiction thing that found a new life in the cult trecnhes. Batman movies have always been events. That this was the first time the quality versus profile ratio was in the quality’s favor, but this isn’t The Matrix, which was an unknown quality, or even X-Men, which had to find a way for the public to give a damn. And ultimately, I think that’s it. Putting an old spin on a new franchise will get you money,, but you’re not going to be able to compete with the big boy franchises that are occupying the here and now, whatever that franchise may be. Only Star Wars can really do it, and that’s only because it was much bigger in its day than the Superman and Batman franchises were in their’s.
“Star Wars” is sui generis.
Dave wrote a great column earlier this summer about the messed-up expectations that are out there for the flicks this summer. We saw it with Nacho Libre. Who thought that was going to be an incredible hit? And I can’t believe there are people dissappointed with the profitable results.
We saw it last year with King Kong. Who were the audiences that studios thought were clamboring to see it? And the B.O. predicters weren’t any better, each proclaiming the take was going to be more than the last, so when the results came in, there was no way the movie couldn’t be a financial dissappointment.
And now Superman. Honestly, other than Nicol D., who was it that has been dying in anticipation for any Superman movie? Why did everyone go crazy assuming it was going to be a hit on the scale of Spiderman? The budget? That was a mess, but no reason to think it had a built-in audience. I really don’t get it. So now those expectations are making it so Superman Returns is a flop.
If people want to say it was the marketing’s fault, fine. Or if it’s Singer’s fault for not making a more joyful movie, that’s fine too. But I think anyone saying it is a flop needs to figure out where they thought the audience for any Superman movie was coming from in the first place.
What surprises me is that no one is aiming for the next POTC. That was the bolt from the blue, the huge success no one saw coming. That’s what studios should be shooting for. The problem is, because of POTC’s success, studios can’t use that as their template, since if they say they’re going for a POTC-style success, the box office expecations will be unreasonable, and if they fall short, it’ll be considered a failure. Try to have a franchise, everyone will compare you to “Star Wars.” Try to create a stand-alone success, you’ll still get compared to something, likely unfavorably. Studios can’t win. Although in a lot of cases, they set themselves up to fail.
There’s no guarantee POTC: DMC will be the all-conquering success people expect. It could be a “disappointment” like “Reloaded.” People might call it a disappointment at $330 million, since that’s where expectations are, and there’ll be questions about where that “missing” $40-50 million went.
There are no guarantees. Just ask Brazil. Disney et al. better hope there isn’t a France lurking in Jack Sparrow’s future.
Dead Man’s Chest is in an unenviable situation. By this point everyone expects it to be the biggest movie since Spiderman. If it doesn’t get Spidey-type numbers for its opening three-day, people will deem it a failure. This ignores, of course that even if it makes 80 or 90 million three-day, it will still best Buena Vista’s three-day record by 10 to 20 million dollars.
Expectations have gone crazy in this boxoffice driven market.
I agree with Mr. Poland about Marsden. It was sort weird that Supes was in the way of his and Lois’ very functional relationship. They made a movie to battle Superman’s perceived obsolence by making it about him battling his own obsolence. Along the way, they forgot to make a Superman movie.
Isn’t WB’s problem at this point that they made the movie with Legendary? All profits will be split and therefore any returns on Superman will be years away.
Does that not also mean that costs were split?
I’m very happy for The Devil Wears Prada. Meryl Streep is a great actress and she deserves the success.
Personally, I think Anne Hathaway is a very smart actress. Publicly, she appears very humble as she keeps on citing Scarlett, Keira, and Natalie as the big 3 young actresses and not herself. Quietly, she’s building a resume with movies that women cheer for without having them getting sick of her by appearing in all the tabloids. With the upcoming Becoming Jane, Anne is making all the right choices on her way to become the next Julia Robert.
After (finally) seeing SR, I think without a doubt a Michael Bay version of this would’ve been a stronger film. And that’s fairly jaw-dropping in its own right. Singer was struggling mightily with all the concepts he thought he was bringing to the table, but all he ended up doing was developing none of them.
What an odd, bland movie.
Yeah, where was that Kate “Bodsworth” Maxim spread? Anyone who has seen Blue Crush or the poster for it knows how incredibly hot she is. I remember Dunst in Maxim (!)
And Brandon Routh, why does he seem so boring? Where’s the parties with Paris Hilton… do SOMETHING to at least look interesting. It would’ve helped the box office at least a little.
I don’t think “Dead Man’s Chest” is going to be written as a failure whatever the massive amount of money it makes even if it makes much less than Spiderman 2. I put Depp in the “Tom Hanks” category that no matter what the box-office of his movies, no one in the media will ever write anything really negative about it.
“Click” wasn’t as funny as I thought it would be… bring on “Little Man!” (I’m guessing there will be no heavy-handed messages in a Wayans brothers movie like there was in Click?).
“but I don’t think we should underestimate the draw of Anne Hathaway. Maybe SHE is the next Julia Roberts.”
Who was it that directed Ann’s breakout? Why, that was Garry Marshall of course, the director of Julia’s Pretty Woman as we all know.
“It’s a Da Vinci Code for women”
Wasn’t The Da Vinci Code the The Da Vinci Code for women? I understood it to be quite popular with women.
Sky Captain, are you being sarcastic? Because if you were, I’d make sure you knew that Blue Crush made about $30mil, so not that many saw it.
But it does appear that it failed to really grasp ahold of any gender. Teenage boys didn’t see enough explosions, girls didn’t see enough sweaty muscular men (seriously, they could’ve (nay, SHOULD’VE) shown off Brandon Routh. He’s a good looking man, but instead every picture had him in his costume or in a suit. Then you have Hugh Jackkman doing photoshoots shirtless and with muscles everywhere and in the movie basically revolves around his muscles. Where was the sexiness? Kate Bosworth certainly doesn’t appear like she has any (scrawny skin and bones is what she comes off as).
On the matter of box-office, there really does appear to be a ceiling for superhero films. Occasionally they can really break through like Spiderman, but X-Men, Batman, Fantastic Four etc all seem to make it appear that there is. the $220mil or so that X-Men 3 made is the highest. This was brought up a few weeks ago but nobody paid any attention or thought it was stupid, but it’s a legitimate point.
However, I will direct you to http://www.boxofficeguru.com/070106.htm
“In the year 2000, when the Fourth of July last fell on a Tuesday, the new releases The Perfect Storm and The Patriot both saw their Friday grosses represent only 23% of their entire Friday-to-Sunday grosses.”
Whod’ve thunk it that The Devil Wears Prada would be a $30mil opening weekend hit? Not Dave, that’s for sure. I’m happy for Meryl! That’s two Summer hits (well, Prairie was a hit for what it was) and if Ant Bully is a hit then that’ll just be strange.
Sorry, make that Blue Crush made $40mil, not $30mil.
In the last week, I’ve decided that Roger Friedman is a bigger @$$ than Jeffrey Wells. His latest take on Superman due to its Friday box office:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201814,00.html#2
So many mistakes in this piece it’s not funny. (Comparing it to Hulk? A movie that opened on a Friday with weaker competition?)
This is from the guy who a few days ago was claiming how Superman would bomb because it wasn’t #1 on Moviefone. (It actually had been #1 on moviefone for weeks and dropped down the Monday after Click opened.)
Sadly, because he writes for Fox News, the public at large will take Friedman’s writing as the bible and it’ll end up hurting Sunday business. (Who wants to see a movie that’s not doing as well as expected, after all?)
“but I don’t think we should underestimate the draw of Anne Hathaway. Maybe SHE is the next Julia Roberts.”
Funny I was thinking that while watching Prada… obviously, she already had the Princess Diaries movies under her belt, but I think this movie proved she could carry a more adult movie like this. If she’s not the new Julia Roberts, than at very least, she’s the new Reese Witherspoon. Her Jane Austen movie should certainly solidify her rep.
Triple post bonanza: Incindentally, I saw the original Superman movie for the first time in 15-20 years yesterday (it was on HBO) and it was so ultra-cheesy… it made Singer’s movie look even more like a masterpiece even though for the most part, it used the exact same formula/story structure. (I still can’t believe the flying around the world to go back in time thing… did anyone go WOW! back when the movie first came out?)
http://www.showbizdata.com has sat box office up, looks like Superman is only up slightly from friday and is at 66 mill so far. Looking like 80 mill or so for the Supes 5-day. It will be at 100 mill mid week probably, so still on track to finish domestic with about $200 mill or so. Questionable whether it can do better than X-men 3 total, let alone War of the Worlds. If it finishes under $200 mill I guarantee there won’t be a sequel.
I think both X3 and WotW are out of reach, at this point — unless it develops strong legs. KONG might be out of reach too. Amazingly, BATMAN BEGINS might be a more realistic race.
telemachos – normally i’d disagree at this stage in the game but because of upcoming releases, any momentum SR has will be diminished. So Batman Begins is a reasonable # SR could compete with at this point. As I said, 200 is the make or break point, so if they genuinely want to keep the franchise viable they may buy their way to that #.
showbizdata.com is reporting 18mil, for sat for a total of 66mil in 4 days. which puts it right around 100mil by the 4th. why is that soooooo horrible? what did this movie have to make to be considered a success? i’ve talked to alot of people on the “street” and they all liked it. comic book guys hated it, but isn’t that always to be expected. i saw it, i enjoyed it and my son enjoyed it (he’s five by the way) my wife liked it a little bit. so thats two out of three right there. i think it will have better legs than people think. and by the way, does anyone long for the days of old when 100mil in 7 days was a good thing and a movie was judged purely on it’s opening weekend? show of hands…..anyone? anyone?
Keoki, it’s not horrible, it’s just less than marketing, budget, etc. anticipated. You make a movie that costs over $300 mill (400 W/ marketing). and it looks to finish within $190-220 mill range domestic, it’s clearly underperforming. It is probably going to do worse than a quickly thrown together Brett-Ratner sequel released earlier this summer. The movie can still be great, etc. just not a big money winner. Don’t let box office influence your opinion of the quality of the film, which I agree is better than some are saying but perhaps not good enough to overcome some hurdles.
Box Office Guru has a $19 million Saturday and a total cume by Sunday of $82 million. Is that so terrible? Um, it’s $18 million behind War of the Worlds at that juncture. War did $234 by the end of it’s run. Is somethin in the $205-215 range for the Superman horrible for Warner Bros.?
Yes. It is.
On the other hand, $27 and maybe $40 something for Prada is pretty amazing for Fox.
Wouldn’t it be funny if Devil Wears Prada turned out to be more profitable than Superman Returns.
Fri-Sat-Sun estimate posted on Mojo: $52.15M.
First 5 days estimate posted on Mojo: $84.2+M.
Estimated budget per Mojo: $260M.
WB is gonna need all that international biz right after the World Cup. Otherwise the DVD will be rushed out before Halloween in order for this latest Franchise/TV Ripoff to turn a profit.
With the way Goldie Lookin Chain has been going this year. Does anyone else think Pirates might make Supes money next week? It your seems likely to me. As likely as a European audience gravitating more to a story-heavy Superman flick, than a Pirate film.
I do find it incredibly funny, that the HULK and SUPERMAN seem to be suffering the same fate with their film franchises. Apparently, the kids do not get father and son stories, but prefer a more vapid Superhero tale like the Spider-Man films (Or those films from the Marvel Universe). Not that the Spider-Man films (or the other Marvel films) are horrible. They simply lack the heart and mind of Superman Returns and to a lesser level the HULK. Once again, if you make some people think, or confront them with something outside of their expectations. They tend to flake out on you, and go see the Devil Wears Prada with their girlfriends. Prada’s a good movie, and it represents the only time COUNTER-PROGRAMMING WORKED.
That aside, Camel, your critique of Bosworth’s sexiness. I find it more than funny. Since you parade around an actress who lost her sex appeal 2 years ago as the height of feminity. Glass houses, sir. Glass houses. ME, Superman is a world-wide merchandising machine, that has a hand in keeping DC afloat. There has always been an audience out there for this film. Finally, Chucky, Superman has a firm release date on DVD. It’s some time in November, and revolves around the release date of the EA Supes game as well. I think best of the next few years in regards to this film, might be, reading people getting a clue, and finally starting to like it. Since it’s a quality film that aims for something, that has importance in this world. If you are into that sort of thing.
themanwho what kind of drugs are you on and if i email you my address can you send me some (legal, of course).
And Prada was a sneak attack move I think. One of the few I’ve seen work so well. Very little promotion, “our little Anne Hathaway movie”, but they knew it would be big-time and started the promos before any kind of backlash, etc. could begin from the other studios. It sorta snuck onto the film scene at just the right moment to cash in bigtime.
Superman looks to barely cross $200. From that perspective, Mr. Poland did overestimate it. And having seen the movie now it makes sense…you don’t walk out of it really wanting to see it again.
This is a little off-topic, but who cares.
I was watching the Superman I & II double feature on Cinemax the other night, and noticed a major phot hole.
Lois Lane is in love ith Superman and considers Clark Kent just a friend. In Superman II she becomes convinced that Clark is Superman. He finally removes his glasses and comes clean. They go to the Fortress of Solitude for dinner and talk. He talks to his mother on his crystal TV screen and asks if he can love Lois. His mother tells him he’ll have to give up his powers and become mortal. He does.
Here’s my question. Why? When Superman gives up his powers he just becomes Clark Kent. Lois Lane is in love with Superman, not Clark Kent. I know him becoming “one of us” adds emotion, but it doesn’t make sense on a basic story level. Lois knows all the good Superman does. She seems to forget this when he gives up his powers. Shouldn’t she be willing to share Superman with the rest of the world? That’s the question raised at the end of Spider-Man 2. Mary Jane learns who Spider-Man is and knows she’ll have to share him with the city. I know Spider-Man 3 will play with this “sharing” aspect of their relationship, but it’ll make more sense that Superman II.
Anyone have any theories? EDouglas? Crow T. Robot? David Poland?
Speaking of Poland, how many of us would’ve loved Poland to have made a Rex Reed-like cameo in Superman Returns?
Anyone think Streep, Hathaway, and Prada will get Golden Globe nominations?
Decent reviews and good box office. I definitely think Prada will get Golden Globe noms.
martin, dont play. You simply do not have the game for it.
Prada is a decent flick, but it will be forgotten at awards time. Simply put; it’s nothing really special. It’s a decent flick with good performances, but a story that equates to Andrea wasting a year of her life. That’s it. Nothing really to write home about, but the women showed up at the theatres to see it. They took their men with them, and counter-programming finally worked. It was bound to happen eventually.
Prada seems like an ideal Golden Globes movie in the comedy/musical category, and Streep is extremely popular when it comes to awards. I fully expect some Golden Globe noms for it.
Let’s be clear, there’s a difference between Golden Globes attention and all other awards attention. How else are they going to fill those fifteen actress/supporting actress spots unless they go for Streep and Hathaway?
Seriously, though, TheManWho, I’ve told you this before, but it’s really hard to take your postings seriously when people can’t even understand half of what you’re talking about.
Streep is a cinch for a best actress Golden Globe nomination in the musical/comedy category (and a likely winner if Beyonce doesn’t hit big), and at this point, probably has a decent shot at an Oscar nod, if just because we haven’t had a great big leading actress role this year yet.
Having seen the play this afternoon, you can pencil in Samuel Barnett (supporting actor) and Frances De La Tour (supporting actress) as nominees for “History Boys.” I don’t think the movie’s going to play AT ALL in middle America unless they’ve made some serious changes to the play, but those two performances, particularly Barnett’s, are in dream roles for actors.
jeff, do you know how absolutely vain you have to be, to post your reply to me? Seriously? Seriously? Andrea is the name of the character Anne Hathaway plays in The Devil’s Wears Prada. If that does not unlock the code for you, then what more can I type? Nevertheless, I lose any respect for you or anyone else (Including UK newspapers), that lack the ability to understand a different syntax not your own. Apparently, you have to lead people down the primrose path all the damn time.
That aside, again, Prada, is nothing special. It’s a decent little flick, but Streep plays a role we have seen before in the controlling boss. The rest of the year, will have to be devoid of some great comedic performances, to have Streep or even Hathaway garner a nomination.
Streep gets nominated all the time for movies that are not great movies. The Academy loves her and that goes a lot further than just giving a good performance, which she also habitually does.
TheManWho, I agree with a lot of your opinions, when I can figure out what they are. Frankly, I think it’s more ‘vain’ to write in a style that disregards whether or not other people can understand you, for your own amusement.
I see all this shock over the “underpromoted” Devil Wears Prada doing well…but I think, perhaps, you people weren’t watching the right programs. If you’re a woman who watches certain TV (as my roommate is) it’s the only movie you’ve been bombarded with this month.
What? You mean a lot of guys who spend all their time on the internet are out of touch with women? How could this happen?
“Wouldn’t it be funny if Devil Wears Prada turned out to be more profitable than Superman Returns.”
Well, it’s very likely considering that Prada cost so much less yet if it makes $100mil and Superman $200mil… plus, it’ll be popular on DVD, especially if Meryl can get an Oscar nod out of this. With this big box-office I think it’s enough to make Meryl a formidable Oscar contender now. It’s been 2 decades since her last win, and she’s never won for comedy and now with this quickly becoming one of her biggest movies ever (it’s already beaten her last nominated perf Adaptation) and with ecstatic reviews… She’s a lock for Golden Globe nod at this point and an Oscar nod is looking better and better for the Streep.
“Not that the Spider-Man films (or the other Marvel films) are horrible. They simply lack the heart and mind of Superman Returns and to a lesser level the HULK.”
You’re obviously not a big fan of Spiderman if you think it lacks heart. Those films have more heart in them than most.
I’m just so freakin’ happy that The Devil Wears Prada is even being discussed about over movies like Superman Returns. A movie that stars Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep in the fashion world just doesn’t scream big box office hit.
To quote Box Office Prophets: “Yes, Superman Returns disappointed this weekend, and it’s all the devil’s fault
WB has been selling this “Prada hurt us” bullshit all weekend. It may be a lovely fantasy, but it is absurd.
Yeah, I don’t think there were a whole lot of folks who said “Well, I would go see Superman, but Devil Wears Prada is out…” That said, I can see Superman having some decent legs, partially due to Imax. While the movie has serious problems (the villain’s plan makes NO sense, the ending is way too long, and there’s no real satisfying confrontation between good and evil)–the tech work in the 3-D stuff in particular is astounding. Also, remember that a lot of folks spent part or all of the weekend travelling.
Lex’ plan makes all sorts of sense. If the Kryptonians could live on that land, then so called Lex. However, it’s about what comes after the land, THE TECHNOLOGY, that leads to Lex ruling the world. Since he will be more advanced than those who are not killed by flooding, and they will have to bend to his will. Not since the Matrix sequels, has a film received such ridiculous and less insightful criticism.
jeff, it’s vain to write in the way that I do? That’s silly. You get confused from one word in a post, and it throws your world in a tizzy. How exactly is that a rational response? Since, you have to either be rude or lacking in extrapolating skillz, to not get the point. It’s nice to confuse you again, jeff. Even if it was with one little word.
“Prada hurt us”
That’s a great compliment to Prada since it really wasn;t considered any kind of blockbuster with fighting gloves on. It is a fantasy too. Sorry but I can’t see any male being interested in seeing that, and I wasn;t interested either. That book was a little shrill.
I can;t get fired up about any movies this week and I am boycotting July 4th, traditionally a holiday for me to see several movies at the show. Actually that’s an understatement, I don;t want to celebrate the 4th when I know my cousins and friends spouses are still in Iraq and what might happen to them in retaliation because of Thugs, turned in by another soldier who wear the same uniform as they–what next in the name of the USA?
TheManWho, it was and is much more than a single word that is confusing in your posts. It’s nice to see that you’re bursting out of the box that is English syntax, but the choice is yours as to whether or not you care if people follow you.
Is there a place where you have written or read the kind of criticism that you prefer for Superman Returns (which, by the way, I like)?
The argument isn’t that men ditched Superman Returns for The Devil Wears Prada, it’s that women ditched their boyfriends/husbands to see Prada with the girls. A group of women are more likely to go to the movies together to see something like Prada than a group of men going to see Superman.
…or that’s what I would assume.
not ditched Superman as much as the better Half made her fella go with her, likely, to see Devil.
Dunno Kamel. Aside from teen girl movies, I don;t know where groups of women/girls go to the flicks.
I didn;t see them at Ya Ya sisterhood anyway. It’s women with captive males from what I’ve seen, although i wasn;t at the pictures in the last 3 days.
Lota: If you really are going to boycott new movies this holiday, might I suggest you kick back with a golden oldie? Tonight I screened “His Girl Friday” for my Film History class at UH. (And yes, for those of you reading other threads, that’s why Cary Grant is on my mind tonight.) And once again, I was delighted to see how well this 66-year-old movie plays with contemporary college-age audiences. Rosalind Russell was a liberated woman before liberation was cool.
jeff, again, it’s so odd, that you even address someone this way. As if I my thoughts on this faceless forum are anymore important than anyone else’s. I am not intentionally throwing Goldie Lookin Chain under the bus with this next statement. However, the man’s columns/posts, on occassion, runs rampant with spelling errors and typos. I have never once seen you call him out in the same way you call me out. So, again, I am not all that special, do not need people to follow me, and continually find this form of question from you very very odd.
That aside, criticism, has devolved into something that’s not really criticism. Instead of being unbiased towards a piece of art. Everything surrounding the piece of art, including opinions, the preceding history, and anything else…gets thrown into a blender, and out comes something that looks like criticism. Which, really isnt criticism, but more of a personal opinion. When someone states, such as Roeper, that Superman is too wholesome, and this causes the character to be boring. Is that a valid criticism? Or does it represent some bullshit, that anyone with any debating skills could rip apart in minutes?
So no, Superman Returns, has not faced any real criticism. It has faced people’s opinions being passed off as criticism. Yet, how exactly, is that a valid criticism?
“Prada’s a good movie, and it represents the only time COUNTER-PROGRAMMING WORKED.”
Hardly. MY BEST FRIEND’S WEDDING opened opposite BATMAN & ROBIN and eventually outgrossed it.
Cadavra:Bingo! You win!
TheManWho, I chide you because I care. I want your opinions to actually make an impact. And I get on your case because you kind of stick out. Typos are one thing. Sentence fragments and stream-of-consciousness musings that I’m sure make sense in your head, but not to others, are something else.
Have you read Matt Zoller Seitz’s review of Superman? You might find it up your alley (he loves it).
What does “Goldie Lookin Chain” mean? I ask in all curiosity.
Joe, I agree on the greatness of His Girl Friday, but don’t you think Russell’s liberated femininity is compromised in that movie, by the fact that she ends up out-maneuvered by Grant and back in his clutches?
Is it just me, or does anyone else suspect The Man Who is really L&DB in a different guise?
(it is)
Jeff: Yes, but she’s also the best damn reporter in that press room. That is, she not only competes with, she surpasses, all the men in her field. That’s a prety damn subversive thing for a 1940 movie to sell. Grant is an SOB, but he clearly appreciates her ability more than Mr. Nice Guy (a.k.a., Ralph Bellmay) ever could.
Good point. She’s clearly more man than Bellamy too. Ah, the Howard Hawks woman…too bad they pretty much only exist in the movies.
Jeff: It has been my good fortune to fall in love with at least two of them in my life. (At different times, of course.) They are indeed real. Because, as Truffaut often noted, women are magic.
And, BTW, I’m not sure I would show that last posting of yours to the woman in your life.
Thankfully/bitterly, Joe, she does not exist.
My sympathies.
jeff, I stick out? You stick out for your lame retorts, your inability to make cohesive points, and a rather bland posting style that VANILLA does not even sum up properly. I hope, that you are replying to me in a less than serious manner. If you were being serious, then you would be declaring yourself as a jerk, schmuck, and ass. You would be all of these things, at least in my eyes, due to admitting you are bullying me out of some sense of caring. Which might be one of the most ridiculous statements, that I have ever read. You are some piece of work. If you are indeed, being serious.
So, I am hoping that your response is a joke. If not, then, I am Captain Scattershot. Whoopidy Doo. Go buy Joe Leydon’s book, and have a great day!
I have a problem with the Supes Returns criticism because it’s lacking in insight. It does not hinge on my dislike or love of that film.
Finally, Goldie Lookin Chain, is explained one page back. If you have ever seen pictures, then the nickname makes all sorts of sense. When you can see the shimmer from a chain in space, then it becomes your nickname.
“Which might be one of the most ridiculous statements, that I have ever read.”
That comma is completely unnecessary.
lol, sorry. That just screamed out at me. I’ve spent the last two years studying commas and it is not fun.
Camel, at least you made a funny comment. Still, it’s there, for effect. Apparently, it’s lost on people, like the season 1 finale of LOST.
I was not joking, but I really must learn to stop trying to change peoples’ behavior when they don’t want to change, no matter how ridiculous they look.
I still recommend that you read Matt Zoller Seitz’s review of Superman at nypress.com.