Look, I just got a little too carried away. If there is a problem with something, just talk to me personally about it. I admit that the dark line was not needed.

Also, English is not one of my strong subjects. I am a bit grammically impaired you know. As for puns, well, I use it for amusement. Then I really that using it excessively can be a little too old after the first two or three.

Just give my another chance at it, and I'll write a new style for the next one.

It's Halloween weekend and you know what that means. That's right, another Saw is coming to cut through the competition. Those without saws may run around with scissors to catch a fire, er, I mean, another movie.

Invading multiplexes everywhere, Saw III opens in 3167 dark houses. Fans who saw the last two films will definitely rush out to see Saw III on opening night. The first film opened on Halloween weekend two years ago, with $18.3 million 2315 locations ($7894 per screen), on it's way to a $55.2 million total, and did even more massive business with DVD rentals. Last year, it's sequel had it's opening weekend gross increase to $31.7 million in 2949 houses ($10,758 per screen), on it's way to a final cume of $87 million. Being a third installment, the fanbase won't increase as much as the sequel, since the fan base for that movie already rose significantly. Then again, with only a $5 million budget, there's really nothing at stake, except for Cary Elwe's life. But with increased theater counts and print counts (with most megaplexes giving it 3+ screens), the per screen average should rise slightly higher, to about $11,400, which will give this gorefest a $36.1 million opening weekend, making it the 15th largest opening weekend for an R rated movie.

Tim Robbins and Derek Luke star in Phillip Noyce's latest political thriller Catch a Fire, which shoots it's way into 1305 locales. Focus Features have done very well with controversial films in the past, like The Constant Gardener. Though the subject matter is a bit dark, the story looks very effective. It should have mass appeal and good reviews won't hurt either. Though it won't do as big as Constant Gardener, it should get a solid pta thanks to African American appeal, good story, positive reviews, and the modest release pattern. A per screen average in the mid $4000 range should result, giving the drama a $6 million opening weekend.

Expanding to 586 theatres is Evan Rachel Wood's and Gweneth Paltrow's Running With Scissors. Despite a solid $28,263 per theater average it got from 8 screens last weekend, it should have a bit of a hard time expanding thanks to mixed reviews and a premise that is too quirky for the general moviegoing crowd. Other movies with similar release patterns, but with better reviews, have suffered in the past (I Heart Huckabees, Punch Drunk Love, Squid and the Whale, The Science of Sleep, etc). Because of a such a wide expansion, the pta should drop at least 80%, which puts the per screen average in the $5,000 range. It should end up with $3.1 million by the time the weekend through.

As for holdovers, Departed will once again, suffer a sub 30% decline thanks to the positive word of mouth, and not as much competition as last weekend. The Prestige will slip a bit thanks the middling audience grades and a small Saturday increase. As for Flags of our Fathers, yes, it will have a low decline, but that's only because of the 300+ increase in the theater count. The per screen average should drop closer to 40%, similar to Prestige. Open Season once again, remains the choice for kids, so it should post the lowest decline in the top ten. Though it didn't open as big as Dreamer, the drop for the sophmore weekend should be similar for the family film Flicka. Grudge II will see its business sawed in half, but with Halloween around the corner, the drop will be lower than last weekend. Marie Antoinette should drop harshly as well, thanks to a lukewarm respone from audiences.

All in all, it will be a smashing Halloween weekend. It should increase from last years top ten. Next weekend, the holiday season begins.

Good job with the edits loyal.

Eagle, I approached this reasonably well. Don't tell me how to react to racism. Yeah, I'm not black, and I'm not crying my heart out over this, but it offended me.

Plus, I think everyone understands that I was joking with the title.

it's 37% pun free.

Looks like Loyal has Flushed Away the grammatical errors and he doesnt have to do it with any Clause, it no longer looks like its being written by a non US citizen (like Borat). Speaking of which all those puntastic movies open next week

*kills self*

hmm. you go crazy over a race remark but homophobic comments are ok. hmm.

i'll make sure i avoid stating that a woman is a woman next time.

I never told you not to express your opinion, but attacking someone and berating their work, however offensive or poorly written it may be, is not the answer. Lowering yourself to that level does no good for anyone. As offensive as Scott's article was to you, your post was to me. I don't enjoy seeing someone belittled and berated in the manner that you decided to do so.

Clearly someone needs to explain some things to Scott. Clearly he has a lot to learn about the topic at hand, but that said I don't feel that Scott said anything maliciously. Nor do I believe that Scott is racist. Does this excuse what he wrote? Of course not, what he wrote was unacceptable, but just because he made a mistake does not mean you get to drag him through the mud. Eye for an Eye is not an effective response, never has been and never will be.

There were better ways to approach this situation and I think you know that.

When have I ever made a homophobic comments? I may have made some, but if I did, I'm sure they were clearly situational or were meant as jokes. I'm not that crazy, Sam Nasty.

priorities i guess.

wait a minute. and scott's isn't? hell, he didn't even say anything negative and his is a real joke, even if you dont find it funny. yet that doesn't qualify?

Yeah, the amount of puns in the original article made it difficult to read, not to mention somewhat annoying. One pun per movie is fine but ScottV went a little overboard. No biggie really though.

let's draw the clear line between forum and site. I don't care what's written in the forum (hell, look at my avatar), the site needs to reflect some form of professionalism.

i have no issues with that. whether that comment was needed from a professional point of view or not is not being debated. but i still dont find it racist. and personally speaking, i've seen writing like that before when it concerns anything but people's colors or sexual orientation. and no one ever has an issue with it.

Derek Luke is REALLY black though. I don't know why that is racist really.

my point exactly.

he's blue black even.

Why would anyone need to state that in a weekend box office preview is the question?

No point really. But I'm just arguing it's not racist really. If you want to bash quality do it with constructive criticism.

I'm sure Scott didn't mean to offend anyone, and i doubt he's racist, but the fact is, you don't say "man, that move was dark - and not just because of the black actors". You can't come out and call a black man "dark"...it's not stating the obvious, it's way too close to blatant racism for anyone's comfort...or it should be.

Not to mention the fact that the writing isn't that great. I understand someone having good ideas but trouble with the technical stuff, good writing is not an easy thing anyway, but it should not be posted without an editor...or just let, like X said, him give someone his predictions and reasons and have them write it. To be fair tho, nothing on this site really should be posted without an edit or two, Scott's aren't the only ones I've read that would benefit from it, but editing is a tough, boring job, so I certainly understand why there never seems to be anyone that wants tdo it.

Well, the editing is a time problem. I'd like to have my weekly wrap-up's edited as well, but the window during which I need to upload the article (between the release of the estimates and Monday noon) is way too small (understandbly so, though), so sending the article to someone who'd edit it and get it back mostly wouldn't work out on time.

Ive been saying scott v is a fuckin idiot for ages

Shouldnt the thread be m.... nm just keep it here I dont want the elite GFF takeover to be ruined

Fucking priceless.